Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0494

Case C-494/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY

OJ C 381, 22.10.2018, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.10.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/8


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY

(Case C-494/18)

(2018/C 381/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendant: XY

Questions referred

1.

Is national legislation such as section 4 of [Final Provision] 23 of the [Spanish Civil Procedure Act], which does not permit a contract or an itemisation of the debt to be provided or required in a claim in which the defendant is a consumer and where there is evidence that the sums being claimed could be based on unfair terms, compatible with Article 38 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], Article 6(1) [TEU] and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive [93/13/EEC]? (1)

2.

Is it compatible with Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation 1896/2006, establishing a European payment order procedure, (2) to require the applicant, in a claim against a consumer, to specify the itemisation of the debt he is claiming in section 11 of standard form A? Is it also compatible with that provision to require that the content of the contractual terms on the basis of which the applicant is making a claim against a consumer, beyond the principal subject matter of the contract, be reproduced in section 11 in order to assess whether they are unfair?

3.

If the answer to question two is negative, can the CJEU state whether it is permissible, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, to assess ex officio, prior to the grant of a European payment order, whether unfair terms are being applied in a contract with a consumer, and the legal basis on which that assessment may be carried out?

4.

In the event that it is not possible to assess ex officio, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, the existence of unfair terms prior to granting a European payment order, the CJEU is asked to rule on the validity of the Regulation referred to and on whether it is contrary to Article 38 of the Charter and Article 6(1) [TEU].


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).


Top