Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Gran Sala), de 10 de enero de 2006 , en el asunto C-302/04 (petición de decisión prejudicial planteada por el Szombathelyi Városi Biróság): Ynos kft contra János Varga ( Artículo 234 CE — Directiva 93/13/CEE — Consumidores — Cláusulas abusivas — Legislación nacional adaptada a la Directiva tras la celebración de un acuerdo de asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y un tercer Estado y antes de la adhesión de dicho Estado a la Unión Europea — Incompetencia del Tribunal de Justicia )

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Published date: 25 February 2006
• Celex Number: C2006/048/14

25.2.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

in Case C-302/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság Ynos kft v János Varga (1)

(Article 234 EC - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumers - Unfair terms - National legislation adapted to comply with the directive after conclusion by a non-member State of an association agreement with the European Communities and before that State acceded to the European Union - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2006/C 48/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

In Case C-302/04; reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 10 June 2004, received at the Court on 14 July 2004, in the proceedings between Ynos kft and János Varga — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; B. Fülöp, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

In circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, the facts of which occurred prior to the accession of a State to the European Union, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the first...