Constructora Principado SA v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62012CJ0226
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2014:10
• Docket Number: C-226/12
• Date: 16 January 2014
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

16 January 2014 ( *1 )

‛Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer contracts — Contract for the purchase of immovable property — Unfair terms — Criteria for assessment’

In Case C‑226/12,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain), made by decision of 7 May 2012, received at the Court on 14 May 2012, in the proceedings

Constructora Principado SA

v

José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of A. Tizzano, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet and M. Berger (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: N. Wahl,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

— Mr Menéndez Álvarez, by himself,

— the Spanish Government, by S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent,

— the Czech Government, by M. Smolek and S. Šindelková, acting as Agents,

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

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) (‘the Directive’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Constructora Principado SA (‘Constructora Principado’) and Mr Menéndez Álvarez concerning the refund of sums paid by the latter pursuant to a contract for the purchase of immovable property concluded with that company.

Legal context

European Union law

3 Article 3 of the Directive provides: ‘1. A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. 2. A term shall always be regarded as not individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term, particularly in the context of a pre-formulated standard contract. ... Where any seller or supplier claims that a standard term has been individually negotiated, the burden of proof in this respect shall be incumbent on him. 3. The Annex shall contain an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.’

4 Under Article 4(1) of the Directive: ‘Without prejudice to Article 7, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.’

5 Article 5 of the Directive provides: ‘In the case of contracts where all or certain terms offered to the consumer are in writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible language. Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail ...’

Spanish law

6 In Spain, consumers were protected against unfair terms first of all by General Law 26/1984 on the protection of consumers and users (Ley General 26/1984 para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios) of 19 July 1984 (BOE No 176 of 24 July 1984, p. 21686).

7 General Law 26/1984 was subsequently amended by Law 7/1998 on general contractual conditions (Ley 7/1998 sobre Condiciones Generales de la Contratación) of 13 April 1998 (BOE No 89 of 14 April 1998, p. 12304), which transposed the Directive into Spanish national law.

8 On the date when the contract which is the subject of the main proceedings was concluded, Article 10a(1) of General Law 26/1984, as amended by Law 7/1998, provided as follows: ‘Contractual terms which have not been individually negotiated and all practices that have not been expressly agreed to shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, they cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. In every case, the terms listed in the first additional provision to this Law shall be regarded as unfair. The fact that certain aspects of a clause, or that an individual term, have been negotiated individually shall not exclude application of this article to the rest of the contract. Where any seller or supplier claims that a standard term has been individually negotiated, the burden of proof in this respect shall be incumbent on him. The unfairness of a term will be assessed by reference to the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of any other contract on which the latter is dependent.’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

9 On 26 June 2005, Mr Menéndez Álvarez entered into a contract with Constructora Principado for the purchase of a dwelling (‘the contract’). Clause 13 of the contract was worded as follows: ‘The purchaser shall be responsible for payment of the municipal tax on the increase in value of urban land, and the price of the property which is the subject of the contract has been determined on that basis. The purchaser shall also be responsible for payment of the charges for individual connection to the various utilities, such as water, gas, electrical power, drainage, etc., even where they have been paid in advance by the vendor.’

10 Initially, Mr Menéndez Álvarez paid a total sum of EUR 1 223.87, of which EUR 1 000 was for the municipal tax on the increase in value of urban land (‘the capital gains tax’) and EUR 223.87 was for connecting the dwelling to the water and drainage system.

11 Subsequently, Mr Menéndez Álvarez brought an action against Constructora Principado before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 de Oviedo (Court of First Instance No 2, Oviedo) for repayment of those sums. The claim was based on the ground that clause 13 of the contract, under which the purchaser had to pay those sums, should be considered unfair by virtue of Article 10a of General Law 26/1984, as amended by Law 7/1998, in that it was not negotiated, and it caused a significant imbalance in the rights and...