Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers
(Case C-147/16) 1
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Examination by the national court of its own motion of the question of whether the contract is within the scope of that directive — Article 2(c) — Notion of ‘seller or supplier’ — Higher educational establishment financed mainly by public funds — Contract for an interest-free repayment plan for registration fees and share of costs of a study trip)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Vredegerecht te Antwerpen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW
Defendant: Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers
Operative part of the judgment
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court giving judgment in default and which has the power, under national procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national public policy laws is required to examine of its own motion whether the contract containing that term falls within the scope of that directive and, if so, whether that term is unfair.
Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court, Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a free educational establishment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, by contract, has agreed with one of its students to provide repayment facilities for sums due by the latter in respect of registration fees and costs connected with a study trip, must be regarded, in the context of that contract, as a ‘seller or supplier’, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13, with the result that that contract falls within the scope of application of that directive.
____________
1 OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.