Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CJ0008

    Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015.
    BBVA SA v Pedro Peñalva López and Others.
    Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Enforcement proceedings — Opposition — Time limits.
    Case C-8/14.

    Court reports – general

    Case C‑8/14

    BBVA SA

    v

    Pedro Peñalva López and Others

    (Request for a preliminary ruling

    from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Martorell)

    ‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Enforcement proceedings — Opposition — Time limits’

    Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 29 October 2015

    Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Mortgage enforcement proceedings ongoing on the date of entry into force of a national transitional provision providing for a time limit within which to object to enforcement — Time limit starting to run from the day following the date of publication of the regulation — Non-compliance with the principle of effectiveness

    (Council Directive 93/13, Arts 6 and 7)

    Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a national transitional provision which, as regards mortgage enforcement proceedings which were instituted before the date of entry into force of the law of which that provision forms part and which were not concluded at that date, imposes a time limit on consumers calculated from the day following the publication of that law within which to object to enforcement on the basis of the alleged unfairness of contractual terms.

    Although, having regard to the length of the period within which to oppose enforcement granted to the consumer, that transitional provision cannot be regarded as undermining the principle of effectiveness, the fact that that period begins to run without the consumers concerned being personally informed of the possibility to raise a new ground of objection in enforcement proceedings which were already in progress before the entry into force of that law, is not such as to guarantee full enjoyment of that period and, therefore, the effective exercise of the new right recognised by the legislative amendment concerned.

    Therefore, that transitional measure infringes the principle of effectiveness.

    (see paras 32, 39, 41, 42, operative part)

    Top