EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0269
Case C-269/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.
Case C-269/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.
Case C-269/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.
OJ C 238, 15.7.2019, p. 7–7
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
15.7.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 238/7 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.
(Case C-269/19)
(2019/C 238/09)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Curtea de Apel Cluj
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Banca B. SA
Respondent: A. A. A.
Questions referred
1. |
Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, after a term establishing the mechanism for determining the variable rate of interest by the formula ‘fixed margin and the benchmark interest applied by a bank on the basis of non-transparent criteria’ has been found to be unfair in connection with a credit agreement applying a fixed interest rate limited to the first year and a variable rate for the subsequent years, in accordance with the above formula, the national court may vary the agreement by imposing a method for calculating the variable rate of interest on the basis of transparent benchmarks (LIBOR/EURIBOR) and the bank’s fixed margin, in the light of the facts contained in the credit agreement, for the purposes of ensuring better consumer protection? |
2. |
If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, the national court may apply, by judicial process, a fixed rate of interest by reference to the fixed margin agreed for the second year of the agreement or to the fixed rate of interest for the first year? |
3. |
If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding the national court, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, from instructing the parties to conduct negotiations with a view to fixing a new interest rate, without setting any benchmarks? |
4. |
If the answer to that question is in the negative, what possible remedies are there to ensure that consumers are protected in line with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC? |
(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).