Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Rijeci — Croatia) — Anica Milivojević v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

(Case C-630/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 and 63 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - National legislation providing that credit agreements featuring international elements concluded with a non-authorised lender are invalid - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 17(1) - Credit agreement concluded by a natural person with a view to the provision of tourist accommodation services - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Article 24, point 1 - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Action for invalidity of a credit agreement and seeking the removal from the land register of the entry of a security interest)

(2019/C 131/13)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Rijeci

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anica Milivojević

Defendant: Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect, inter alia, that credit agreements and legal acts based on those agreements concluded in that Member State between debtors and creditors established in another Member State who do not hold an authorisation, issued by the competent authorities of the first Member State, to operate in that State, are invalid from the date on which they were concluded, even if they were concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.

Article 4(1) and Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of disputes concerning credit agreements featuring international elements which fall within the scope of that regulation, allows debtors to bring an action against non-authorised lenders either before the courts of the State in which they have their registered office or before the courts of the place where the debtors have their domicile or head office and restricts jurisdiction to hear actions brought by creditors against their debtors only to courts of the State on the territory of which those debtors have their domicile, whether they are consumers or professionals.

Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a debtor who has entered into a credit agreement in order to have renovation work carried out in an immovable property which is his domicile with the intention, in particular, of providing tourist accommodation services cannot be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, unless, in the light of the context of the transaction, regarded as a whole, for which the contract has been concluded, that contract has such a tenuous link to that professional activity that it appears clear that the contract is essentially for private purposes, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

The first subparagraph of point 1 of Article 24 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action ‘relating to rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision, constitutes an action for the removal from the land register of the mortgage on a building, but that an action for a declaration of the invalidity of a credit agreement and of the notarised deed relating to the creation of a mortgage taken out as a guarantee for the debt arising out of that agreement does not fall within that concept.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.