Carlo Bagnasco y otros contra Banca Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl. (BNP) (C-215/96) y Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige) (C-216/96).

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 61996CJ0215
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1999:12
• Date: 21 January 1999
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Docket Number: C-216/96,C-215/96

Avis juridique important

|

61996J0215

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 1999. - Carlo Bagnasco and Others v Banca Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl. (BNP) (C-215/96) and Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige) (C-216/96). - References for a preliminary ruling: Tribunale civile e penale di Genova - Italy. - Competition - Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty - Standard bank conditions for current-account credit facilities and for the provision of general guarantees. - Joined cases C-215/96 and C-216/96.

European Court reports 1999 Page I-00135

Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Manifestly irrelevant question

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2 Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Prejudicial to competition - Standard bank conditions imposed by a banking association on its members - Condition allowing banks to change their interest rates in contracts for current-account credit facilities - None

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

3 Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Effect on trade between Member States - Standard bank conditions imposed by a banking association on its members - Binding conditions regarding general guarantees and derogating from the general law - None

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

4 Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Standard bank conditions imposed by a banking association on its members - None

(EC Treaty, Art. 86)

Summary

1 In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is solely for the national courts before which actions are brought, and which must bear the responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular facts of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court. A request for a preliminary ruling may be rejected as inadmissible only where it is plain that the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a Community rule requested by the national court has no bearing on the actual facts or subject-matter of the case before it.

2 Standard bank conditions imposed by a banking association on its members, in so far as they enable banks, in contracts for the opening of current-account credit facilities, to change the interest rate at any time by reason of objective factors such as changes on the money market, and to do so by means of a notice displayed on their premises or in such manner as they consider most appropriate, do not have as their object or effect the restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.

3 Standard bank conditions imposed by a banking association on its members in relation to general guarantees which must be provided for contracts for the opening of current-account credit facilities, and which derogate from the general law concerning guarantees, are not, taken as a whole, liable to affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty where it is established that the service in question involves economic activities which have a very limited impact on trade between Member States and that recourse to contracts containing conditions of that kind by the main customers of foreign banks is not a factor of decisive importance in the choice made by foreign banks as to whether or not to establish themselves in the country concerned.

4 The application of standard bank conditions imposed by a banking association on its members in contracts for the opening of current-account credit facilities does not constitute abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty where it is established, first, that the change in the interest rate for credit facilities, allowed by those conditions, depends on objective factors such as changes on the money market, and, second, that the conditions relating to general guarantees which must be provided for such contracts and which derogate from the general law concerning guarantees are not liable appreciably to affect trade between Member States.

Parties

In Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Carlo Bagnasco and Others

and

Banca Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl (BPN) (C-215/96),

Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige) (C-216/96),

on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to certain standard bank conditions which the Associazione Bancaria Italiana imposes on its members when contracts are concluded for current-account credit facilities and for the provision of general guarantees,

THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber),

composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G.F. Mancini, J.L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K.M. Ioannou, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

- Carlo Bagnasco and Others, by Anna Collivadino, of the Genoa Bar,

- Banca Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl (BPN), by Giacomo Traverso, of the Genoa Bar,

- Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige), by Laura Granata, of the Genoa Bar,

- the Italian Government, by Professor Umberto Leanza, Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato,

- the Commission of the European Communities, by Fabiola Mascardi and Wouter Wils, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 January 1998,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By two orders of 15 May 1996, received at the Court Registry on 21 June 1996, the Tribunale di Genova (Genoa District Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty four questions on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of that Treaty concerning certain standard bank conditions (`Norme Bancarie Uniforme', hereinafter `NBU' or `standard bank conditions') which the Associazione Bancaria Italiana (Italian Banking Association, hereinafter `the ABI') imposes on its members when contracts are concluded for current-account credit facilities and the provision of general guarantees.

2 Those questions were raised in two actions brought by Carlo Bagnasco and Others against Banca Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl (hereinafter `BPN') (Case C-215/96) and by Carlo Bagnasco and Others against Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA (hereinafter `Carige') (Case C-216/96) concerning the repayment of loans granted by those banking establishments.

3 The plaintiffs in the main proceedings, Mr Bagnasco, as principal debtor, and his sureties, as joint and several debtors, appealed against two provisionally enforceable orders made by the President of the Tribunale di Genova on 1 June 1992 on application by BPN and Carige, requiring them to pay,

to BPN the sum of ITL 222 440 332, made up as follows:

- ITL 170 444 332, being the debit balance of a current account opened in the name of Carlo Bagnasco under a contract concluded on 8 October 1991, together with interest as from 1 April 1992 at the rate of 17%;

- ITL 9 400 000, being the debit balance of a current account opened in the name of Carlo Bagnasco under a contract concluded on 27 December 1991, together with interest as from 1 April 1992 at the rate of 17.50%;

- ITL 21 600 000, corresponding to the amount of four promissory notes issued by the individual firm Fidaurum, owned by Mr Bagnasco, and discounted by BPN, in respect of which the other four plaintiffs each provided a guarantee on 22 January 1992 for the sum of ITL 5 400 000, together with interest as from 22 May 1992 at the legally prescribed rate of 10%; and

- ITL 21 000 000 for bills drawn on Mrs Sbardella, discounted and credited to current accounts `subject to payment by the principal debtor', as listed on documents signed by Carlo Bagnasco, and for the pledging of instruments, again payable by Mrs Sbardella, discounted by Carlo Bagnasco, in respect of all of which the debtor was the subject of a protest, with the result that, under the contract, that person also forfeited all rights as regards the unmatured instruments, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 15% as from the date of the order requiring payment;

and to Carige the sum of ITL 124 119 497, made up as follows:

- ITL 48 798 664, being the debit balance of a current account opened in the name of Mr Bagnasco under a contract concluded on 28 August 1989, together with interest as from 11 June 1992 at the rate of 17.50%;

- ITL 75 320 833, together with interest as from 11 June 1992 at the rate of 15%, in respect of a `bank advance' of ITL 95 000 000 arranged on 12 November 1991, for which Mr Bagnasco had issued 19 promissory notes.

4 The orders addressed to the plaintiffs in the main proceedings, who are joint and several debtors, were obtained by reason of the specific guarantee which they had given for the unpaid promissory notes and of the `general guarantee' (fidejussione omnibus) which they had signed for up to ITL 300 000 000 (Case C-215/96) and ITL 195 000 000 (Case C-216/96).

5 The plaintiffs have asked the national court to declare the orders at issue invalid or unenforceable or - in the alternative - to determine precisely what amount is owed to the two banks. They plead, in particular, that the NBU, on which the claims of the defendants in the main proceedings are based, are incompatible with Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.

6 According to the...