This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0693
Joined Cases C-693/19 and C-831/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW (C-831/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Payment order and attachment proceedings against third parties — Force of res judicata implicitly covering the validity of the terms of an enforceable instrument — Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion the potential unfairness of a term)
Joined Cases C-693/19 and C-831/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW (C-831/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Payment order and attachment proceedings against third parties — Force of res judicata implicitly covering the validity of the terms of an enforceable instrument — Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion the potential unfairness of a term)
Joined Cases C-693/19 and C-831/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW (C-831/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Payment order and attachment proceedings against third parties — Force of res judicata implicitly covering the validity of the terms of an enforceable instrument — Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion the potential unfairness of a term)
OJ C 266, 11.7.2022, p. 3–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.7.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 266/3 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW (C-831/19)
(Joined Cases C-693/19 and C-831/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Payment order and attachment proceedings against third parties - Force of res judicata implicitly covering the validity of the terms of an enforceable instrument - Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion the potential unfairness of a term)
(2022/C 266/03)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale di Milano
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA, Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Carugate e Inzago sc, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, Banca Popolare di Sondrio s.c.p.a, Cerved Credit Management (C-831/19)
Defendants: YB (C-693/19), YX, ZW (C-831/19)
Operative part of the judgment
Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where an order for payment issued by a court on application by a creditor has not been the subject of an objection lodged by the debtor, the court hearing the enforcement proceedings may not, on the ground that the force of res judicata of that order applies by implication to the validity of those terms, thus excluding any examination of their validity, subsequently review the potential unfairness of the contractual terms on which that order is based. The fact that, at the time when the order became final, the debtor was unaware that he or she could be classified as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that directive, is irrelevant in that regard.