Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CA0169

Case C-169/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain)) — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Consumer contracts — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Right to an appeal)

IO C 315, 15.9.2014, pp. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.9.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/25


Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain)) — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

(Case C-169/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement - Unfair terms - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Right to an appeal))

2014/C 315/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a system of enforcement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that mortgage enforcement proceedings may not be stayed by the court of first instance, which, in its final decision, may at most award compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the consumer, inasmuch as the latter, the debtor against whom mortgage enforcement proceedings are brought, may not appeal against a decision dismissing his objection to that enforcement, whereas the seller or supplier, the creditor seeking enforcement, may bring an appeal against a decision terminating the proceedings or ordering an unfair term to be disapplied.


(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


Top