11.5.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/8 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Home Credit Slovakia a.s. v Klára Bíróová
(Case C-42/15)
(2015/C 155/10)
Language of the case: Slovak
Referring court
Okresný súd Dunajská Streda
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Defendant: Klára Bíróová
Questions referred
1. |
Must the concepts of ‘on paper’ and ‘another durable medium’ in Article 10(1) (in conjunction with Article 3(m)) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) be interpreted as extending to:
|
2. |
Following the answer to Question 1: Must Article 10(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the relevant field, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice which:
|
3. |
Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’)
|
4. |
If the interpretation in the second indent of Question 3 is correct: Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’) may also be contained in a separate document to which the agreement complying with the requirement of being on paper (within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the directive) refers, but which does not itself have to fulfil that requirement (that is, in principle it does not have to be signed by the parties to the contract; it may, for example, be ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor)? |
5. |
Must Article 10(2)(i) in conjunction with (h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that:
|
6. |
If the interpretation in the first indent of Question 5 is correct: Does that question fall within the field of full harmonisation aimed at by Directive 2008/48, so that a Member State, in accordance with Article 22(1), may not require a credit agreement to contain a precise definition of what proportion of each individual instalment is used to repay capital and what proportion of it pays current interest and charges (that is, a precise schedule of instalments/amortisation table must be a component of the agreement)? |
7. |
Must the provisions of Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the field concerned, or Article 23 of the directive, in accordance with which penalties must be proportionate, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which the absence of most of the elements of a credit agreement required by Article 10(2) of the directive has the consequence that the credit granted is regarded as interest-free and free of charges, so that the debtor is obliged to repay the creditor solely the capital sum which he received under the agreement? |