Notice for the OJ

 

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Roubaix by judgment of that court of 15 May 2003 in the case of Banque Sofinco SA against Daniel and Carole Djemoui,

    (Case C-237/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d'instance (District Court), Roubaix of 15 May 2003 received at the Court Registry on 4 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Sofinco SA against Daniel and Carole Djemoui on the following questions:

1.Must Council Directives 87/102/EC ¹ of 22 December 1986 and 90/88/EC ² of 22 February 1990 be interpreted as requiring the national court to favour the interpretation of national law obliging consumer credit institutions to inform the borrower/consumer in writing of the current annual percentage rate of charge, before each renewal of a credit agreement renewable in instalments in which the interest is stipulated to be variable?

Must those directives be interpreted as requiring the national court to favour the interpretation of national law obliging consumer credit institutions to bring to the attention of the consumer the clause concerning the variation in that annual percentage rate of charge before each renewal of the agreement?

2.Must those directives be interpreted as designed solely to protect the consumer or, beyond that, to organise the single market in consumer credit?

Does the requirement of an interpretation in conformity with the aims ( at the very least those of protecting the consumer ( of those directives mean that the court may raise of its own motion defects in credit agreements, such as the failure to include a written statement of the annual percentage rate of charge or the clause providing for its variation?

3.Must those directives be interpreted as meaning that the court is required to favour the interpretation of national law authorising it to uphold pleas of irregularity vitiating the conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agreement, such as those described above, raised by the consumer or of the court's own motion, without any time-limit, in a dispute arising out of an action for payment brought by the credit institution?

If not, must those directives be interpreted as meaning that the court is required to favour the interpretation of national law authorising it to set aside a national provision prohibiting the consumer or the court of its own motion from raising a plea of irregularity affecting the conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agreement, at the end of a time-limit derogating from the ordinary law, inasmuch as it constitutes an exceptional restriction of the consumer's right to bring an action and compromises the effectiveness of consumer protection?

____________

¹ - (Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).

² - (Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14).