Peter Macinsky v Getfin s.r.o. Financreal s.r.o. [2013] EUECJ C-482/12 (21 November 2013)

Peter Macinsky v Getfin s.r.o. Financreal s.r.o. [2013] EUECJ C-482/12 (21 November 2013)

The Advocate General found the question referred inadmissible because the underlying contract was declared null and void, the enforcement procedure was abandoned, and the answer would not affect the outcome of the national proceedings. Even if admissible, the procedure at issue does not, in itself, make it...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EUECJ C-482/12
Parties
Applicant: Peter Macinský; Applicant: Eva Macinská; Respondent: Getfin s.r.o.; Respondent: Financreal s.r.o.
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Request for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General
Outcome
Question referred declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Directive 93/13/eec, Unfair Contract Terms, Enforcement of Security Interests, Public Auction of Immovable Property, Principle of Effectiveness, Admissibility of Preliminary Reference
European Union Law Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Directive 93/13/eec Unfair Contract Terms Enforcement of Security Interests Public Auction of Immovable Property Principle of Effectiveness +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Macinský

Applicant

Eva Macinská

Applicant

Getfin s.r.o.

Respondent

Financreal s.r.o.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Request for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Directive 93/13/EEC precludes national legislation allowing enforcement of unfair contract terms by out-of-court sale of immovable property without judicial assessment
  2. 2 Admissibility of the preliminary reference given the procedural posture and finality of underlying national judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Advocate General found the question referred inadmissible because the underlying contract was declared null and void, the enforcement procedure was abandoned, and the answer would not affect the outcome of the national proceedings. Even if admissible, the procedure at issue does not, in itself, make it excessively difficult for consumers to exercise their rights under Directive 93/13/EEC, provided sufficient procedural guarantees exist.

Court Disposition

Question referred declared inadmissible