BBVA SA v Pedro Peñalva López and Others.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62014CJ0008
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2015:731
• Docket Number: C-8/14
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Date: 29 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

29 October 2015 (* )

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

In Case C‑8/14,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Martorell (Court of First Instance No 4, Martorell, Spain), made by decision of 28 October 2013, received at the Court on 10 January 2014, in the proceedings

BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA,

v

Pedro Peñalva López,

Clara López Durán,

Diego Fernández Gabarro,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of A. Tizzano, Vice-President of the Court, acting as President of the First Chamber, F. Biltgen, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits (Rapporteur), and, S. Rodin, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Szpunar,

Registrar: M. Ferreira,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 February 2015,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

— BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA, by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and B. García Gómez, abogados,

— Mr Peñalva López, Ms López Durán and Mr Fernández Gabarro, by M. Alemany Canals, A. Martínez Hiruela, T. Moreno and A. Davalos, abogados,

— the Spanish Government, by J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent,

— the European Commission, by J. Baquero Cruz and M. van Beek, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 May 2015,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA (‘BBVA’), and Mr Fernández Gabarro, Mr Peñalva López and Ms López Durán concerning their objection to mortgage enforcement proceedings in respect of a parking space and a shed.

Legal context

EU law

3 Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 provides: ‘Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms.’

4 Article 7(1) of the directive provides: ‘Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers.’

Spanish law

5 Law 1/2013 on measures to strengthen the protection of mortgage debtors, debt restructuring and social rents (Ley 1/2013 de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social) of 14 May 2013 (BOE No 116, of 15 May 2013, p. 36373) amended the Civil Procedure Code (Ley de enjuiciamiento civil) of 7 January 2000 (BOE No 7 of 8 January 2000, p. 575), itself amended by Decree-Law 7/2013 on urgent fiscal and budgetary measures promoting research, development and innovation (Decreto-ley 7/2013, de medidas urgentes de naturaleza tributaria, presupuestarias y de foment de la investigación, el desarrollo y la innovación) of 28 June 2013 (BOE No 155 of 29 June 2013, p. 48767, ‘the Civil Procedure Code’).

6 The Fourth Transition Provision of Law 1/2013 (‘the transitional provision at issue’) concerns enforcement procedures instituted before the entry into force of Law 1/2013 and not yet concluded. That provision is worded as follows: ‘1. The amendments [to the Civil Procedure Code] introduced by the present Law, shall apply to enforcement proceedings already in progress at the date of entry into force of the present law, only in respect of those enforcement measures still to be taken. 2. In any event, in enforcement proceedings in progress on the date of the entry into force of the present law, in which the 10-day period for lodging an objection to enforcement laid down by Article 556.1 [of the Civil Procedure Code] has expired, the parties against whom enforcement is sought shall have a period of one month within which to submit an extraordinary application objecting to enforcement based on the existence of new grounds for opposition, set out in Article 557.1(7) and Article 695.1(4) [of the Civil Procedure Code]. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 558 and 695 [of the Civil Procedure Code], the time-limit of one month shall start to run from the day following the entry into force of the present Law, and the effect of the lodging by the parties of the application objecting to enforcement shall be to suspend proceedings until the application has been adjudicated upon. The present transitional provision shall be applicable to all enforcement proceedings that have not led to the mortgagee’s taking possession of the property in accordance with the provisions of Article 675 [of the Civil Procedure Code]. 3. Likewise, in enforcement proceedings in progress in which, on the entry into force of the present Law, the 10-day period for objecting to enforcement laid down by Article 556.1 of the Civil Procedure Code has already started to run, the parties against whom enforcement is sought shall enjoy the same period of one month provided for in the previous paragraph in order to submit an application on the basis of the existence of any of the grounds for objecting to enforcement provided for under Articles 557 and 695 [of the Civil Procedure Code]. 4. Publication of the present provision shall be considered full and valid notification for the purposes of notifying and calculating the periods provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present article, without its being necessary in any circumstances expressly to make an order in that respect.’

7 Article 556.1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as follows: ‘If the enforceable decision is a procedural or arbitral decision making an award, or a mediation agreement, the party against whom enforcement is sought may, within 10 days of service of the enforcement order, challenge it in writing by relying on payment or compliance with the operative part of the judgment, arbitral award or agreement, documentary evidence must be provided. It is also possible to challenge the time-limit for the enforcement action and the agreements and transactions which have been concluded in order to avoid enforcement, provided that those agreements and transactions are set out in a notarised act.’

8 According to Article 557 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the procedure to objecting to enforcement based on non-judicial decision or arbitration awards: ‘1. Where enforcement is ordered in respect of the enforceable orders referred to in Article 517.2(4), (5), (6) and (7), and for other enforceable orders mentioned in Article 517.2(9), the party against whom enforcement is sought may, within the periods and in the forms prescribed in the preceding article, object to enforcement only if he relies on one of the following grounds: … 7°. The document contains unfair terms. 2. If the opposition referred to in the preceding paragraph is lodged the court registry shall suspend enforcement by measure of organisation of procedure.’

9 Article 695.1(4) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code provides as follows: ‘1. In proceedings under this chapter, an objection to enforcement by the party against whom enforcement is sought may be upheld only if it is based on the following grounds: … (4) the unfairness of a contractual term constituting the basis for enforcement or which has enabled the amount due to be calculated. 2. If an objection is lodged under the preceding paragraph, the court registry shall stay enforcement and summon the parties to a hearing before the court which ordered the enforcement. There shall be at least four days between the summons and the date of the hearing in question. At that hearing, the court shall hear the parties, examine the documents that are submitted and issue the decision that it considers reasonable within two days in the form of an order.’

Dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

10 Before the entry into force of Law 1/2013, on 15 May 2013, BBVA brought mortgage enforcement proceedings against Mr Fernández Gabarro, Mr Peñalva López and Ms López Durán. On that date, the proceedings had not yet been concluded. It is apparent from the documents submitted to the Court that those enforcement proceedings concern a parking space and a shed.

11 On 17 June 2013, after the expiry of the one-month period for bringing an extraordinary application objecting to the mortgage enforcement proceedings provided for by the transitional provision at issue, the defendants in the main proceedings argued before the national court that the time-limit laid down by that measure was contrary to Directive 93/13.

12 First, the one-month time-limit for raising the unfairness of terms in the enforceable order was insufficient for the courts, called upon to review of their own motion the content of loan or credit agreements accompanied by a mortgage guarantee in the process of being enforced and, a fortiori for consumers, who have to raise the possible unfairness of the terms in those contracts.

13 Second, the defendants in the main proceedings submit that, if...