This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CB0321
Case C-321/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — CDT, SA v MIMR, HRMM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Temporal effects of a judgment — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Accelerated repayment term — Partial removal of the content of an unfair term — Principle of legal certainty — Obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law)
Case C-321/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — CDT, SA v MIMR, HRMM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Temporal effects of a judgment — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Accelerated repayment term — Partial removal of the content of an unfair term — Principle of legal certainty — Obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law)
Case C-321/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — CDT, SA v MIMR, HRMM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Temporal effects of a judgment — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Accelerated repayment term — Partial removal of the content of an unfair term — Principle of legal certainty — Obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law)
OJ C 182, 10.5.2021, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.5.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 182/23 |
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — CDT, SA v MIMR, HRMM
(Case C-321/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Temporal effects of a judgment - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Accelerated repayment term - Partial removal of the content of an unfair term - Principle of legal certainty - Obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law)
(2021/C 182/32)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: CDT, SA
Defendant: MIMR, HRMM
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
EU law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as not precluding the national court from refraining from applying a provision of national law enabling it to review an unfair term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer in a situation in which that provision, which was held to be contrary to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts by judgment of 14 June 2012, Banco Español de Crédito (C-618/10, EU: C:2012:349), had not yet been the subject of a legislative amendment, in accordance with that judgment, at the time of the conclusion of that contract. |
|
2. |
The principle of legal certainty must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow a national court which has found that a contractual term is unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 to review the content of that term, with the result that that court is required to disapply it. However, Articles 6 and 7 of that directive do not preclude the national court from substituting a supplementary provision of national law for such a term, provided that the loan agreement in question cannot survive if the unfair term is removed and that the annulment of the agreement as a whole would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences, which is a matter for the national court to determine. |