<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><CONCLUSION NNC="YES" xmlns:fmx="http://opoce" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://formex.publications.europa.eu/schema/formex-05.58-20161101.xd"><BIB.CONCLUSION><REF.CASE FILE="n.a."><NO.CASE>C-630/17</NO.CASE></REF.CASE><NO.CELEX>62017CC0630</NO.CELEX><NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:908">EU:C:2018:908</NO.ECLI><NO.SEQ>0001</NO.SEQ><PAGE.FIRST.ECR>1</PAGE.FIRST.ECR><PAGE.SEQ>1</PAGE.SEQ><PAGE.LAST.ECR>16</PAGE.LAST.ECR><PAGE.TOTAL>16</PAGE.TOTAL></BIB.CONCLUSION><CURR.TITLE><PAGE.HEADER><P><HT TYPE="SC">Opinion of Mr Tanchev – Case C‑630/17</HT></P><P><HT TYPE="SC">Milivojević</HT></P></PAGE.HEADER></CURR.TITLE><TITLE><TI><P><HT TYPE="UC">Opinion of Advocate General</HT></P><P><HT TYPE="UC">Tanchev</HT></P><P>delivered on <DATE ISO="20181114">14 November 2018</DATE><NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0001"><P>Original language: English.</P></NOTE></P></TI><STI><P><HT TYPE="BOLD">Case C‑630/17</HT></P><P>Anica Milivojević</P><P>v</P><P>Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen</P><P><HT TYPE="NORMAL">(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Rijeci (Municipal Court, Rijeka, Croatia))</HT></P></STI></TITLE><INTERMEDIATE><INDEX IDX.CLOSE=") " SEPARATOR=" — " IDX.OPEN="("><KEYWORD>Free movement of services</KEYWORD><KEYWORD>Contracts for provision of credit concluded prior to Accession of Croatia to the European Union</KEYWORD><KEYWORD>Retroactive Member State law providing for nullity of such contracts when they feature international elements</KEYWORD><KEYWORD>Admissibility</KEYWORD></INDEX></INTERMEDIATE><CONTENTS.CONCLUSION><GR.SEQ LEVEL="1"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD">I.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD">Introduction</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0001"><NO.P>1.</NO.P><TXT>This reference for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Rijeci (Municipal Court, Rijeka, Croatia; <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0001" REF.END="QE0001"/>the referring court<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0001" CODE="2019" ID="QE0001"/>) essentially concerns the compatibility with EU law of a Croatian law providing for the nullity from their date of conclusion of loan contracts, secured by mortgages on Croatian properties, that were made between Croatian debtors and foreign lenders who were not authorised to provide credit services in Croatia by the Hrvatska narodna banka (<QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0002" REF.END="QE0002"/>the National Bank of Croatia<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0002" CODE="2019" ID="QE0002"/>). The terms of the Treaty of Accession of Croatia to the EU<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0002"><P><REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="112" PAGE.FIRST="21" DATE.PUB="2012">OJ 2012 L 112, p. 21</REF.DOC.OJ>.</P></NOTE> also come into play, given that the law in issue encompasses loan agreements concluded prior to Croatian accession on <DATE ISO="20130701">1 July 2013</DATE>.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0002"><NO.P>2.</NO.P><TXT>The referring court has sent three questions which are concerned with the interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of <DATE ISO="20121212">12 December 2012</DATE> on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0003"><P><REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="351" PAGE.FIRST="1" DATE.PUB="2012">OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1</REF.DOC.OJ>.</P></NOTE> and one addressing the element of the dispute detailed above, which entails consideration of EU free movement law and the Court’s case-law on the impact <HT TYPE="ITALIC">ratione temporis</HT> of EU law upon accession of a new Member State. As requested by the Court, this Opinion will address these latter issues.</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="2"?><GR.SEQ LEVEL="2"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD"><HT TYPE="ITALIC">A.</HT></HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD"><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Legal framework</HT></HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><GR.SEQ LEVEL="3"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="ITALIC">1.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="ITALIC">EU law</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0003"><NO.P>3.</NO.P><TXT>The first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU states:</TXT><P><QUOT.S LEVEL="1"><ALINEA><QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0003" REF.END="QE0003"/>Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0003" CODE="2019" ID="QE0003"/></ALINEA></QUOT.S></P></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0004"><NO.P>4.</NO.P><TXT>Article 63(1) TFEU states:</TXT><P><QUOT.S LEVEL="1"><ALINEA><QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0004" REF.END="QE0004"/>Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0004" CODE="2019" ID="QE0004"/></ALINEA></QUOT.S></P></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ><GR.SEQ LEVEL="3"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="ITALIC">2.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Member State law</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0005"><NO.P>5.</NO.P><TXT>The Zakon o ništetnosti ugovora o kreditu s međunarodnim obilježjima sklopljenih u Republici Hrvatskoj s neovlaštenim vjerovnikom (Law on the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia with an unauthorised creditor, <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0005" REF.END="QE0005"/>the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE><QUOT.END REF.START="QS0005" CODE="2019" ID="QE0005"/>)<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0004"><P><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Narodne novine</HT> (Official Gazette) No 72/2017.</P></NOTE> states as follows in the first paragraph of Article 1, Articles 2 to 5 and 7 to 11:</TXT><P><QUOT.S LEVEL="1"><P><QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0006" REF.END="QE0006"/>Law on the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia with an unauthorised creditor</P><P>Object of the law</P><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="001"><TI.ART>Article 1</TI.ART><PARAG IDENTIFIER="001.001"><NO.PARAG>(1)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA><P>The present law applies to credit contracts featuring international elements which have been concluded in the Republic of Croatia between debtors and unauthorised lenders, with the exception of contracts which have been concluded by the following debtors;</P><P>…</P></ALINEA></PARAG><PARAG IDENTIFIER="001.002"><NO.PARAG>(2)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA>The present law equally applies to other legal acts established in the Republic of Croatia between debtors and non-authorised lenders that are aimed at a credit contract featuring international elements in the sense of the first paragraph of the present article or which are founded on such a contract.</ALINEA></PARAG></ARTICLE><P>Definitions</P><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="002"><TI.ART>Article 2</TI.ART><ALINEA><P>In the sense of the present law, the term:</P><LIST TYPE="DASH"><ITEM><P><QUOT.START CODE="201C" ID="QS0007" REF.END="QE0007"/>debtor<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0007" CODE="201D" ID="QE0007"/> refers to all physical or moral persons to whom a credit has been granted by virtue of a credit contract featuring international elements, or all persons who profit from a person to whom such a credit has been granted in its capacity as a co-debtor, debtor creditor, co-debtor creditor, or guarantor.</P></ITEM><?PAGE NO="3"?><ITEM><P><QUOT.START CODE="201C" ID="QS0008" REF.END="QE0008"/>non-authorised lender<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0008" CODE="201D" ID="QE0008"/> refers to all moral persons who have agreed to provide a credit to a debtor pursuant to a credit contract featuring international elements, and whose statutory seat is situated outside of the Republic of Croatia at the date of the contract featuring international elements and which propose or supply credit services in the Republic of Croatia, even though such a lender does not satisfy the conditions required by regulation for the supply of such services, and more precisely, it does not have the authorisations and/or agreement of the competent authorities of the Republic of Croatia.</P></ITEM></LIST><P>…</P></ALINEA></ARTICLE><P>Nullity of credit contracts</P><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="003"><TI.ART>Article 3</TI.ART><PARAG IDENTIFIER="003.001"><NO.PARAG>(1)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA>Credit contracts featuring international elements which have been concluded in the Republic of Croatia between debtors and unauthorised lenders are null and void.</ALINEA></PARAG><PARAG IDENTIFIER="003.002"><NO.PARAG>(2)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA>By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of the present article, nullity cannot be invoked when a contract has been completed in its entirety.</ALINEA></PARAG></ARTICLE><P>Nullity of other legal acts</P><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="004"><TI.ART>Article 4</TI.ART><ALINEA>All acts of a notary established on the basis of, or having a link with, a null and void contract in the sense of Article 3 of the present law shall be null and void.</ALINEA></ARTICLE><P>Exclusion of forced execution</P><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="005"><TI.ART>Article 5</TI.ART><ALINEA>When a judgment establishing the nullity of a credit contract or the nullity of an act of a notary founded on a null and void contract has acquired the status of <HT TYPE="ITALIC">res judicata</HT>, all execution procedures against the debtor before courts or financial agencies shall be closed at the request of the debtor.</ALINEA></ARTICLE><P>…</P><P>Effects of nullity</P><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="007"><TI.ART>Article 7</TI.ART><ALINEA>Each contracting party is bound to give restitution to the other party of everything it has received by virtue of the null and void contract, and if that is not possible or if the nature of that which was executed precludes restitution, an appropriate pecuniary indemnity must be provided, which is to be fixed as a function of the price in place on the date on which the judicial decision is rendered.</ALINEA></ARTICLE><P>Competence</P><?PAGE NO="4"?><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="008"><TI.ART>Article 8</TI.ART><PARAG IDENTIFIER="008.001"><NO.PARAG>(1)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA>In the framework of litigation concerning credit contracts featuring international elements, in the sense of the present law, an action initiated by the debtor against an unauthorised lender can be brought either before the courts of the State on the territory of which the unauthorised lender has its seat (whatever the seat of the unauthorised creditor) or before the courts of the place where the debtor has his domicile or his seat.</ALINEA></PARAG><PARAG IDENTIFIER="008.002"><NO.PARAG>(2)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA>The action instituted against the debtor by the unauthorised lender, in the sense of paragraph 1 of the present article, can only be brought before the courts of the State on the territory on which the debtor has his domicile or seat. The law applicable to null and void contracts in the sense of the present law is, exclusively, the law of Croatia and the court seised of an action concerning the nullity of such a contract will apply the present law to such an action, without examining if there exist presumptions for the application of the law of the place of the conclusion of the contract by virtue of other legislative instruments</ALINEA></PARAG></ARTICLE><P>Transitory and final provisions</P><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="009"><TI.ART>Article 9</TI.ART><ALINEA>The present law is without prejudice to rights conferred on debtors by special laws when they are more favourable.</ALINEA></ARTICLE><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="010"><TI.ART>Article 10</TI.ART><PARAG IDENTIFIER="010.001"><NO.PARAG>(1)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA>Credit contracts featuring international elements, in the sense of the present law, which have been concluded in the Republic of Croatia, before the entry into force of the present law, between debtors and unauthorised creditors, are null and void from the date of their conclusion, resulting in the effects indicated in Article 7.</ALINEA></PARAG><PARAG IDENTIFIER="010.002"><NO.PARAG>(2)</NO.PARAG><ALINEA>Other legal acts established in the Republic of Croatia, before the entry into force of the present law, between debtors and unauthorised creditors, which follow from a credit contract featuring international elements aimed at paragraph 1 of the present article which are founded on such a contract, are null and void from the date of their establishment, entailing the effects set out in Article 7.</ALINEA></PARAG></ARTICLE><ARTICLE IDENTIFIER="011"><TI.ART>Article 11</TI.ART><ALINEA>The present law enters into force 8 days after its publication in <QUOT.START CODE="201C" ID="QS0009" REF.END="QE0009"/><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Narodne novine</HT><QUOT.END REF.START="QS0009" CODE="201D" ID="QE0009"/></ALINEA><ALINEA>Zagreb, <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>.<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0006" CODE="2019" ID="QE0006"/></ALINEA></ARTICLE></QUOT.S></P></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ></GR.SEQ></GR.SEQ><GR.SEQ LEVEL="1"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD">II.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD">The facts in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0006"><NO.P>6.</NO.P><TXT>On <DATE ISO="20070105">5 January 2007</DATE>, Anica Milivojević (<QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0010" REF.END="QE0010"/>the applicant<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0010" CODE="2019" ID="QE0010"/>), a national of the Republic of Croatia, and her husband, since deceased, concluded with Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen (<QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0011" REF.END="QE0011"/>the defendant<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0011" CODE="2019" ID="QE0011"/>), whose registered office is in the Republic of Austria, a single-loan contract in the amount of EUR <FT TYPE="NUMBER">47000</FT>. This sum was transferred in cash in the defendant’s office in Austria, and the contract in issue was concluded with the help of an intermediary resident in Croatia who was paid a commission.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0005"><P>According to the written observations of the Commission which were uncontested in this regard.</P></NOTE> The credit was sought with a view to enlargement and renovation of the applicant’s<?PAGE NO="5"?> home, partly for private reasons and partly to rent out apartments on the tourism market.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0006"><P>Ibid.</P></NOTE> It is common ground that the defendant had no authorisation from the National Bank of Croatia to provide financial services involving the grant of mortgage loans within the territory of the Republic of Croatia.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0007"><NO.P>7.</NO.P><TXT>To guarantee repayment of the loan, on <DATE ISO="20070112">12 January 2007</DATE> the applicant signed a memorandum of guarantee before a notary on the basis of which a mortgage on her immovable property was registered in the Land Registry.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0008"><NO.P>8.</NO.P><TXT>On <DATE ISO="20150423">23 April 2015</DATE>, the applicant commenced proceedings in the referring court against the defendant, seeking a declaration of nullity of the single-loan contract of <DATE ISO="20070105">5 January 2007</DATE> (<QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0012" REF.END="QE0012"/>the contract<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0012" CODE="2019" ID="QE0012"/>) and of the memorandum of guarantee signed before a notary on <DATE ISO="20070112">12 January 2007</DATE>, and also seeking cancellation of the mortgage entry made in the Land Registry.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0009"><NO.P>9.</NO.P><TXT>The referring court brought the proceedings to an end on <DATE ISO="20170703">3 July 2017</DATE>, but re-opened the case by decision of <DATE ISO="20170810">10 August 2017</DATE> owing to the entry into force of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>, on the basis that its provisions might be applicable to the main proceedings. The Government of the Republic of Croatia declared in its Opinion of <DATE ISO="20170525">25 May 2017</DATE> that the, then, draft Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> should be allowed to take effect retroactively, given that the aim of the measure could not be attained in any other way.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0010"><NO.P>10.</NO.P><TXT>According to the order for reference, it is not apparent from the Opinion of the Government of the Republic of Croatia that there is any protection of the rights of the debtor (of consumers and/or small businesses) in issue against dishonest dealing that might be recognised under EU law as an exception to the freedom to provide services. The contracts in question are those concluded within the period between 2000 and 2010, and after that period the Republic of Croatia acceded to the European Union, enabling foreign credit establishments temporarily to provide financial services, without any permit from the National Bank of Croatia.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0011"><NO.P>11.</NO.P><TXT>Article 3(1) of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> provides for the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia between a debtor and unauthorised creditor. Pursuant to Article 10, nullity takes effect from the moment the contract was entered into, and includes other legal acts that are consequential upon that contract.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0012"><NO.P>12.</NO.P><TXT>Under Article 2, second indent, of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>, an unauthorised creditor is a legal person who, by means of a loan contract with international features, has granted a loan to the debtor and, at the time the said contract was concluded, had its registered office outside of the Republic of Croatia and who provides or offers services involving the approval of loans in the Republic of Croatia, despite not fulfilling the requirements laid down in the relevant provisions for offering such services or not holding prescribed permits and/or approvals from the competent authorities of the Republic of Croatia.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0013"><NO.P>13.</NO.P><TXT>Finally, the referring court states that it has been declared in the Croatian courts that the loan contracts are not void under Member State law in force at the time these contracts were concluded. The referring court also mentions paragraph 3.2 of the Conclusion of <DATE ISO="20160412">12 April 2016</DATE> of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, pre-dating the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>, and drawn up following a meeting held between the President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia and the Presidents of the Civil Chambers of the County Courts, which indicated that the said contracts are not void, since no such consequence is envisaged in the Zakon o bankama (Law on Banks), or in the Zakon o kreditnim institucijama (Law on Credit Establishments), that being the case up to <DATE ISO="20150930">30 September 2015</DATE>, when that consequence was provided for in the Law amending the Zakon o potrošačkom kreditiranju (Consumer Credit Law).</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="6"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0014"><NO.P>14.</NO.P><TXT>However, the referring court states that it remains unresolved as to whether, having regard to the assertion of the Government of the Republic of Croatia in the abovementioned Opinion, to the effect that, as a result of the retroactive effects of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>, <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0013" REF.END="QE0013"/>the same legal rules are established<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0013" CODE="2019" ID="QE0013"/>, discrimination has occurred against a creditor by virtue of changes to his legal status in the pending proceedings and from the economic losses suffered by it in the form of <HT TYPE="ITALIC">lucrum cessans</HT> due to non-payment of contractually prescribed interest.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0015"><NO.P>15.</NO.P><TXT>By virtue of the declaration of nullity of the loan contracts and of the other related legal acts, the defendant is henceforth prevented from providing financial services. Therefore the referring court asks whether this is contrary to the freedom to provide services in the internal market in the EU and, possibly to the free movement of capital.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0016"><NO.P>16.</NO.P><TXT>It is disputed between the parties whether the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> applies to the defendant at all, whether the law of Croatia or the law of Austria applies to the contract, and whether vesting the courts of Croatia with jurisdiction, under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> is compatible with Regulation No 1215/2012.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0017"><NO.P>17.</NO.P><TXT>Thus, the referring court has sent to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling.</TXT><QUOT.S LEVEL="1"><LIST TYPE="OTHER"><ITEM><NP><NO.P><QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0014" REF.END="QE0014"/>(1)</NO.P><TXT>Must Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the provisions of the Law on the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia with an unauthorised creditor …, in particular the provisions of Article 10 of that law, which provides for the nullity of loan contracts and other legal acts that are consequential upon the loan contract concluded between a debtor (within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2, first indent, of the said law) and an unauthorised creditor (within the meaning of Article 2, second indent, of the same law) or are based on that contract, even if they were concluded before the entry into force of that law, that nullity taking effect from the moment the contract was entered into, with the result that each of the contracting parties is obliged to return to the other party everything received by it on the basis of the void contract and, when that is impossible or when the nature of the action taken is incompatible with restoration, adequate pecuniary compensation must be paid, based on the prices in force when the judicial decision is delivered?</TXT></NP></ITEM><ITEM><NP><NO.P>(2)</NO.P><TXT>Must [Regulation No 1215/2012], in particular Articles 4(1) and 25, be interpreted as precluding provisions of Article 8(1) and (2) of the Law on the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia with an unauthorised creditor, in which it is laid down that, in disputes relating to loan contracts with international features within the meaning of that law, the debtor may sue an unauthorised creditor before the courts of the State in which the latter has its registered office or, irrespective of where the unauthorised creditor has its registered office, before the courts of the place where the debtor resides or has his registered office, whereas an unauthorised creditor, within the meaning of that law, may commence proceedings against the debtor only in the courts of the State in which the latter resides or has his registered office?</TXT></NP></ITEM><ITEM><NP><NO.P>(3)</NO.P><TXT>Is it a consumer contract within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and of the legal <HT TYPE="ITALIC">acquis</HT> of the Union if the recipient of the loan is a natural person who has concluded a loan contract in order to invest in holiday apartments with the aim of carrying on the business of offering tourists private board and lodging?</TXT></NP></ITEM><ITEM><NP><NO.P>(4)</NO.P><TXT>Must Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction is enjoyed by the courts of the Republic of Croatia to hear and determine proceedings seeking a declaration of nullity of a loan contract and of the corresponding memoranda of guarantee, together with cancellation of the registration of a mortgage in the Land Registry, when, in order to guarantee performance of the obligations under the loan contract, that mortgage was secured upon immovable property of the debtor situated within the Republic of Croatia?<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0014" CODE="2019" ID="QE0014"/></TXT></NP></ITEM></LIST></QUOT.S></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="7"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0018"><NO.P>18.</NO.P><TXT>As noted above, the Court has requested an Opinion only in respect of the first question. Written observations were filed with the Court by the defendant, the Republic of Croatia, and the European Commission. All were present at the hearing that took place on <DATE ISO="20180905">5 September 2018</DATE>.</TXT></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ><GR.SEQ LEVEL="1"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD">III.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD">Summary of written observations with respect to the first question</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0019"><NO.P>19.</NO.P><TXT>The defendant argues that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> is not applicable to it for two reasons. First, the defendant is not an unauthorised lender within the meaning of Article 2 of that law, and second, the contract was not concluded in Croatia but in Austria, placing it outside of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> due to Article 1.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0020"><NO.P>20.</NO.P><TXT>The defendant states that it has never proposed or provided credit services on the territory of Croatia, so that it cannot be considered an unauthorised lender. The application for credit was signed by the applicant and then sent to the defendant to its seat in Austria. Under the text of the contract it was concluded in the Republic of Austria.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0021"><NO.P>21.</NO.P><TXT>The defendant operates only in the territory of Austria, in conformity with Austrian law. The fact that the contract was concluded with nationals of Croatia does not mean that the defendant operated in Croatia. The defendant contends that Croatian law actively allows Croatian nationals to contract with foreign lenders,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0007"><P>Reference is made in this regard to Article 28(3) of Zakona o deviznom poslovanju (Croatian law on foreign exchange transactions).</P></NOTE> and that Croatian law also provides that loan contracts are concluded at the place of the seat of the lender or its domicile at the moment of the presentation of the offer.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0008"><P>Reference is made in this regard to Article 252(2) of the Zakon o obveznim odnosima (the Croatian law relevant to obligation), <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Narodne novine</HT> No 35/2005, 41/2008, 125/2011, 78/2015.</P></NOTE> The defendant points out that the applicant came to Austria, and poses the question as to why the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> is directed at the defendant and not the applicant.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0022"><NO.P>22.</NO.P><TXT>The defendant further argues that its position is supported by three judgments of Croatian courts issued after the entry into force of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0009"><P>Reference is made in this regard to the judgment of <DATE ISO="20170926">26 September 2017</DATE> rendered by the Županijski sud u Zagrebu (County Court, Zagreb, Croatia) in case Gž-3798/15 and the judgments rendered on <DATE ISO="20171018">18 October 2017</DATE> in case Gž-1811/17 and of <DATE ISO="20171130">30 November 2017</DATE> in case Gž-2459/2017 by the Županijski sud u Splitu (County Court, Split, Croatia, and various judgments rendered at first instance, namely the judgments rendered by the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu (Municipal Civil Court, Zagreb, Croatia) in cases P‑7448/14, P‑123/17, P‑4873/13 and P‑1677/16, the judgment rendered by the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu, Stalna služba u Sesvetama (Municipal Civil Court, Zagreb, permanent branch of Sesvete), in case P‑2334/2015 and the judgments rendered by the Općinski građanski sud u Varaždinu Municipal Civil Court, Varaždin, Croatia) in cases P‑137/16 and P‑1095/14.</P></NOTE> and in this context questions whether Member States can derogate from EU rules on choice of law of a contract.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0010"><P>The defendant refers to Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of <DATE ISO="20080617">17 June 2008</DATE> on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), <REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="177" PAGE.FIRST="6" DATE.PUB="2008">OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6</REF.DOC.OJ>.</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0023"><NO.P>23.</NO.P><TXT>Freedom to provide services prohibits both restrictions on the freedom across Member States and discrimination against service providers that are not established in the State of provision.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0011"><P>The defendant refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19741203">3 December 1974</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">van Binsbergen</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>33/74</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1974:131">EU:C:1974:131</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0022">22</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19910725">25 July 1991</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑288/89</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1991:323">EU:C:1991:323</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0010">10</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> The effects of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> are more important for foreign lending services than lenders established in Croatia, so that indirect discrimination arises,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0012"><P>The defendant refers to the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19820203">3 February 1982</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Seco and Desquenne &amp; Giral</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>62/81 and 63/81</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1982:34">EU:C:1982:34</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> but direct discrimination is also present due to the definition of <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0015" REF.END="QE0015"/>unauthorised lender<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0015" CODE="2019" ID="QE0015"/> set out in Article 2 of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>. Under EU law, a provider of services possessing all the authorisations in the Member State where the provider is established is equally authorised to provide services in other Member States.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0013"><P>The defendant refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19910725">25 July 1991</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Säger</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑76/90</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1991:331">EU:C:1991:331</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0012">12</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19991026">26 October 1999</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Eurowings Luftverkehr</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑294/97</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1999:524">EU:C:1999:524</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0033">33</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20051020">20 October 2005</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">France</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑264/03</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2005:620">EU:C:2005:620</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0066">66</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> It is further contended by the defendant that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> renders the provision of services in Croatia less attractive.</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="8"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0024"><NO.P>24.</NO.P><TXT>The defendant states that on no occasion has the Croatian legislature explained why it considers that the special regime applicable under the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> to foreign nationals is justified in order to safeguard public order, public security, or the public health of the Republic of Croatia, and nor has the principle of proportionality been respected.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0014"><P>The defendant refers to the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20030513">13 May 2003</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Müller-Fauré and van Riet</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑385/99</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2003:270">EU:C:2003:270</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0068">68</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> The defendant asserts that a restriction on competition has arisen.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0025"><NO.P>25.</NO.P><TXT>Croatia contests the admissibility of the first to third questions. With regard to the first question, Croatia argues that the Court is competent to interpret EU law from the date of accession of a Member State to the European Union.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0015"><P>Croatia relies on the order of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20141105">5 November 2014</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">VG Vodoopskrba</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑254/14</NO.CASE>, not published, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2014:2354">EU:C:2014:2354</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0010">10</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE> Given that Croatia joined the European Union on <DATE ISO="20130701">1 July 2013</DATE>, and that the nullity of the contract will take place from the date of its conclusion, namely <DATE ISO="20070105">5 January 2007</DATE>, the Court is not competent to respond to the first question.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0026"><NO.P>26.</NO.P><TXT>Croatia also argues that Question 1 is hypothetical. The referring court is yet to determine that the contract was concluded in Croatia.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0016"><P>Croatia refers to Article 1 of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> and the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20021210">10 December 2002</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑491/01</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2002:741">EU:C:2002:741</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0035">35</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0027"><NO.P>27.</NO.P><TXT>In terms of substance, Croatia contends that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> was adopted for the legitimate goal of protecting the large number of Croatian citizens who, in the period prior to accession of Croatia to the EU, concluded credit contracts with lenders that exercised their activities without the authorisations required by the Croatia authorities.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0028"><NO.P>28.</NO.P><TXT>For Croatia, Articles 53 and 63 TFEU can only be called on to protect lawful rather than unlawful activities, and no trader can have legitimate expectations with respect to the latter.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0017"><P>Croatia refers to the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20050630">30 June 2005</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Branco</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>T‑347/03</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:T:2005:265">EU:T:2005:265</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0102">102</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> Croatia adds that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> was passed after all other legal avenues had been exhausted for protecting Croatian citizens against these illegal activities.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0029"><NO.P>29.</NO.P><TXT>Finally, Croatia points out that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> amounts only to <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0016" REF.END="QE0016"/>false<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0016" CODE="2019" ID="QE0016"/> or <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0017" REF.END="QE0017"/>quasi<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0017" CODE="2019" ID="QE0017"/> retroactivity, given that the law on nullity does not apply to legal situations that are extinguished. There is no register of unauthorised lenders in Croatia so the <QUOT.START CODE="201C" ID="QS0018" REF.END="QE0018"/>quasi<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0018" CODE="201D" ID="QE0018"/> retroactivity was the only effective way of protecting debtors. The absence of a register of foreign lenders also means that it is impossible to impose sanctions or administrative measures in a uniform manner.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0030"><NO.P>30.</NO.P><TXT>The Commission makes no specific arguments on the admissibility of the first question. However, it states that if the national court were to decide that Austrian law applies, EU law would not be pertinent to the dispute. The Commission therefore answers the questions referred on the contingency that the contract is governed by Croatian law.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0031"><NO.P>31.</NO.P><TXT>The Commission argues that EU law applies <HT TYPE="ITALIC">ratione temporis</HT> to the main proceedings because, in the absence of contrary provision in the Treaty of accession of a new Member State, EU law applies from the date of accession to the future effects of situations arising prior to that new Member State’s accession to the European Union.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0018"><P>The Commission refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19971002">2 October 1997</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Saldanha and MTS</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑122/96</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1997:458">EU:C:1997:458</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0014">14</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19990429">29 April 1999</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Ciola</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑224/97</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1999:212">EU:C:1999:212</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0027">27</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0034">34</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20020129">29 January 2002</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Pokrzeptowicz- Meyer</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑162/00</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2002:57">EU:C:2002:57</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0050">50</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> There is no such derogation in Croatia’s Treaty of Accession.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0019"><P>Above, footnote 2.</P></NOTE> Given that the effects of the contract in issue were not extinguished on <DATE ISO="20130701">1 July 2013</DATE>, the main proceedings are governed by EU law. The Commission also places reliance more generally on the fact that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> came into force after Croatian accession.</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="9"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0032"><NO.P>32.</NO.P><TXT>The Commission is of the view that, in the context of freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU, the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> is both discriminatory on the basis of the nationality of the Member State in which the service provider is established,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0020"><P>In this context the Commission refers to the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19910725">25 July 1991</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑288/89</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1991:323">EU:C:1991:323</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0010">10</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> and an indistinctly applicable measure restricting the freedom to provide services.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0021"><P>In this context the Commission refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19950510">10 May 1995</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Alpine Investments</HT></NAME.CASE>, (<NO.CASE>C‑384/93</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1995:126">EU:C:1995:126</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0028">28</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0034">34</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20060615">15 June 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">France</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑255/04</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:401">EU:C:2006:401</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0037">37</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20090625">25 June 2009</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Austria</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑356/08</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2009:401">EU:C:2009:401</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0039">39</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20120712">12 July 2012</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">HIT and HIT LARIX</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑176/11</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2012:454">EU:C:2012:454</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0016">16</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20180118">18 January 2018</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Wind 1014 and Daell</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑249/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:21">EU:C:2018:21</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0021">21</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0033"><NO.P>33.</NO.P><TXT>With respect to the former, the Commission argues that unauthorised lenders established outside of Croatia are treated less favourably than unauthorised lenders inside Croatia, because there is no retroactivity in the law applicable to nullity of certain contracts entered into by unauthorised lenders established inside Croatia,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0022"><P>The Commission refers to Article 19 j of the law on Consumer Credit (Official Journal of the Republic of Croatia Nos 75/2009, 112/2012, 143/2013, 147/2013, 9/2015, 78/2015, 102/2015 and 52/2016), inserted by the law modifying and complementing the law on consumer credit (Journal officiel de la République de Croatie n<HT TYPE="SUP">o</HT> 102/2015).</P></NOTE> and in any event, according to a conclusion of the Supreme Court of <DATE ISO="20160412">12 April 2016</DATE>, nullity can only apply to consumer credit contracts.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0034"><NO.P>34.</NO.P><TXT>With respect to the latter, the Commission contends that precluding future lenders having all the necessary authorisations from their home Member States from providing loan services in Croatia is a manifest breach of mutual recognition and an infringement of the freedom to provide services.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0023"><P>The Commission refers to Article 33 and Annex 1 to Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of <DATE ISO="20130626">26 June 2013</DATE> on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (<REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="176" PAGE.FIRST="338" DATE.PUB="2013">OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338</REF.DOC.OJ>); judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20000309">9 March 2000</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Belgium</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑355/98</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2000:113">EU:C:2000:113</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0037">37</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19910725">25 July 1991</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Säger</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑76/90</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1991:331">EU:C:1991:331</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0014">14</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> Further, nullity from the date that a credit contract is concluded and the obligations with respect to restitution imposed by the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> renders less attractive, to the point of rendering impossible, the provision of services.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0035"><NO.P>35.</NO.P><TXT>The Commission states that if a restrictive provision is discriminatory, it may be justified only on the grounds of public policy, public safety or public health, laid down in Article 52 TFEU.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0024"><P>The Commission refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20030923">23 September 2003</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑452/01</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2003:493">EU:C:2003:493</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0034">34</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>), and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20160128">28 January 2016</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Laezza</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑375/14</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:60">EU:C:2016:60</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0025">25</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0026">26</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> Overriding reasons in the public interest, which may justify a restriction on the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, cannot justify discriminatory restrictions.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0025"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20160128">28 January 2016</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Laezza</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑375/14</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:60">EU:C:2016:60</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0025">25</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0036"><NO.P>36.</NO.P><TXT>The Commission acknowledges that, with regard to indistinctly applicable impediments to the freedom to provide services, the Court has recognised certain overriding reasons of public interest, capable of justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services, such as the fidelity of commercial contracts, consumer protection, protection of the recipient of services from services provided by unqualified persons, the maintenance of the good reputation of the national financial sector, and the proper functioning of financial services.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0026"><P>The Commission refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19950510">10 May 1995</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Alpine Investments</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑384/93</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1995:126">EU:C:1995:126</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0044">44</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19970709">9 July 1997</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">De Agostini and TV-Shop</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑34/95 to C‑36/95</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1997:344">EU:C:1997:344</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0053">53</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19910725">25 July 1991</DATE> <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑288/89</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1991:323">EU:C:1991:323</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0014">14</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20060330">30 March 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑451/03</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:208">EU:C:2006:208</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20130718">18 July 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Citroën Belux</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑265/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:498">EU:C:2013:498</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0040">40</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>), and Case E‑08/16 <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Netfonds</HT> [2017] EFTA Ct. Rep. 163, paragraph 113.</P></NOTE> However, the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> mentions none of these objectives, does not protect them in any coherent manner, and is disproportionate, particularly given the breadth of its scope to all credit contracts with a foreign element. The retroactivity of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> also offends legal certainty.</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="10"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0037"><NO.P>37.</NO.P><TXT>Finally, the Commission acknowledges that the Court will in principle examine the measure in dispute in relation to only one of the two freedoms, that is the freedom to provide services or free movement of capital, if it appears, in the circumstances of the case, that one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0027"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20061003">3 October 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Fidium Finanz</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑452/04</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:631">EU:C:2006:631</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0030">30</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0034">34</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> The Commission adds that in any event the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> is also inconsistent with the free movement of capital under Article 63(1) TFEU.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0028"><P>The Commission refers, inter alia, to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19990316">16 March 1999</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Trummer and Mayer</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑222/97</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1999:143">EU:C:1999:143</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0023">23</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20120426">26 April 2012</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">van Putten</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑578/10 to C‑580/10</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2012:246">EU:C:2012:246</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0032">32</REF.NP.ECR> to<REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0036">36</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20131003">3 October 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Itelcar</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑282/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:629">EU:C:2013:629</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0014">14</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20000926">26 September 2000</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Belgium</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑478/98</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2000:497">EU:C:2000:497</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0018">18</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20030513">13 May 2003</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">United Kingdom</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑98/01</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2003:273">EU:C:2003:273</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0043">43</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20020604">4 June 2002</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">France</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑483/99</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2002:327">EU:C:2002:327</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0040">40</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20100701">1 July 2010</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Dijkman and Dijkman-Lavaleije</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑233/09</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2010:397">EU:C:2010:397</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0031">31</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20020604">4 June 2002</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Portugal</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑367/98</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2002:326">EU:C:2002:326</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0044">44</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0045">45</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20060928">28 September 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Netherlands</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑282/04 and C‑283/04</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:608">EU:C:2006:608</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0018">18</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20100708">8 July 2010</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Commission</HT> v <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Portugal</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑171/08</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2010:412">EU:C:2010:412</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0048">48</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20170125">25 January 2017</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Festersen</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑370/05</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2007:59">EU:C:2007:59</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0024">24</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20130508">8 May 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Libert and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑197/11 and C‑203/11</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:288">EU:C:2013:288</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0044">44</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>), and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20131022">22 October 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Essent and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑105/12 to C‑107/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:677">EU:C:2013:677</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0039">39</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>, and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ><GR.SEQ LEVEL="1"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD">IV.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD">Assessment</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><GR.SEQ LEVEL="2"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD"><HT TYPE="ITALIC">A.</HT></HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD"><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Preliminary observations</HT></HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><GR.SEQ LEVEL="3"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="ITALIC">1.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Admissibility</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0038"><NO.P>38.</NO.P><TXT>The arguments made by Croatia to the effect that the order for reference is hypothetical because the referring court is yet to decide whether the contract in issue is governed by the law of Croatia or Austria is to be rejected. The presumption of relevance is not to be set aside.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0029"><P>See e.g. judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20161027">27 October 2016</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Audace and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑114/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:813">EU:C:2016:813</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0034">34</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0039"><NO.P>39.</NO.P><TXT>There are no hypothetical facts in the main proceedings,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0030"><P>Cf. the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20060928">28 September 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Gasparini and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑467/04</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:610">EU:C:2006:610</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0044">44</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0045">45</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> and the EU rules the interpretation of which has been sought by the referring court already display legal effects.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0031"><P>See, in this regard, the Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in <REF.DOC.ECR><NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">RO</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑327/18 PPU</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:644">EU:C:2018:644</NO.ECLI>, point <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0034">34</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> The fact that the Court may be constrained to work on assumptions,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0032"><P>Ibid., point 36.</P></NOTE> such as that the referring court will ultimately decide that the contract is governed by the law of Croatia, does not render the judgment advisory,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0033"><P>See my Opinion in <REF.DOC.ECR><NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice)</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑216/18 PPU</NO.CASE> <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:517">EU:C:2018:517</NO.ECLI>, point <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0032">32</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>), referring to judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20100908">8 September 2010</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Winner Wetten</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑409/06</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2010:503">EU:C:2010:503</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20140227">27 February 2014</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Pohotovosť</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑470/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2014:101">EU:C:2014:101</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0028">28</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0029">29</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> particularly when Regulation No 593/2008, relied on by the defendant, on the law applicable to contractual obligations, is closely bound up with Regulation No 1215/2012, on which the referring court has sent three questions for a preliminary ruling.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0040"><NO.P>40.</NO.P><TXT>An answer to Question 1 is therefore necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0034"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20100908">8 September 2010</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Winner Wetten</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑409/06</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2010:503">EU:C:2010:503</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE> particularly when, under the established case-law of the Court, in the light of the division of responsibilities between the national courts and the Court of Justice, <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0019" REF.END="QE0019"/>the referring court cannot be required to make all the findings of fact and of law required by its judicial function first before it may then bring the matter before the Court. It is sufficient that both the subject matter of the dispute in the<?PAGE NO="11"?> main proceedings and the main issues raised for the [EU] legal order may be understood from the reference for a preliminary ruling, in order to enable the Member States to submit their observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and to participate effectively in the proceedings before the Court<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0019" CODE="2019" ID="QE0019"/>.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0035"><P>Ibid., paragraph 39 and the case-law cited. See also recently the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20180920">20 September 2018</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Danko and Danková</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑448/17</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:745">EU:C:2018:745</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0055">55</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0058">58</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>), where a question referred was declared admissible by the Court, even though it was argued that the referring court would not adjudicate on the unfair nature of the relevant contractual term should a consumer organisation be granted standing.</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0041"><NO.P>41.</NO.P><TXT>The first question is therefore admissible.</TXT></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ><GR.SEQ LEVEL="3"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="ITALIC">2.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Applicability ratione temporis of EU law</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0042"><NO.P>42.</NO.P><TXT>As argued by the Commission (see point 31 above) under the established case-law of the Court, in the absence of contrary provision in the Treaty of accession of a new Member State, EU law applies from the date of accession to the <HT TYPE="ITALIC">future effects</HT> of situations arising prior to that new Member State’s accession to the European Union.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0036"><P>My emphasis. As noted above, the Commission refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19971002">2 October 1997</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Saldanha and MTS</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑122/96</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1997:458">EU:C:1997:458</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0014">14</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19990429">29 April 1999</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Ciola</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑224/97</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1999:212">EU:C:1999:212</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0027">27</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0034">34</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20020129">29 January 2002</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑162/00</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2002:57">EU:C:2002:57</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0050">50</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> At the hearing nothing was tabled to suggest that the position of debtors such as the applicant were a feature of the negotiations with Croatia. As noted in the Commission’s written observations, there is no such derogation in Croatia’s Treaty of Accession.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0037"><P>Above, point 31.</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0043"><NO.P>43.</NO.P><TXT>The effects of the contract in issue were not extinguished on <DATE ISO="20130701">1 July 2013</DATE>, so the main proceedings are governed by EU law. The general approach to the applicability of EU law <HT TYPE="ITALIC">ratione temporis</HT> when a Member State accedes to the EU is one of ongoing legal effects. Legal relationships that are unexhausted at the time of a Member State’s accession <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0020" REF.END="QE0020"/>must adapt to the new legal framework<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0020" CODE="2019" ID="QE0020"/>.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0038"><P>Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in <REF.DOC.ECR><NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Nemec</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑256/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:619">EU:C:2016:619</NO.ECLI>, point <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0040">40</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>). See principally in this regard the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19971002">2 October 1997</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Saldahna and MTS</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑122/96</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1997:458">EU:C:1997:458</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20070614">14 June 2007</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Téléfonica O2 Czech Republic</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑64/06</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2007:348">EU:C:2007:348</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20091112">12 November 2009</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Elektrownia Pątnów II</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑441/08</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2009:698">EU:C:2009:698</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20100415">15 April 2010</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">CIBA</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑96/08</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2010:185">EU:C:2010:185</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20130912">12 September 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Kuso</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑614/11</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:544">EU:C:2013:544</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>), and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20120214">14 February 2012</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Toshiba Corporation and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑17/10</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2012:72">EU:C:2012:72</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>). I put to one side the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20060110">10 January 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Ynos</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑302/04</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:9">EU:C:2006:9</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>), given that pertinent facts occurred after the legal system of Hungary had been approximated with the relevant directive but before Hungarian accession to the EU on <DATE ISO="20040501">1 May 2004</DATE>.</P></NOTE> It is inarguable that the contract in issue has on-going legal effects, given that it is still subject to guarantee by a mortgage, which the applicant seeks in the main proceedings to have set aside, and the contract itself states that it terminates on <DATE ISO="20211031">31 October 2021</DATE>. The Court has held that non-payment of a contract debt after accession, with respect to a contract concluded before accession, is governed by EU law.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0039"><P>See the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20161215">15 December 2016</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Nemec</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑256/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:954">EU:C:2016:954</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0021">21</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0027">27</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>, particularly at paragraph 23).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0044"><NO.P>44.</NO.P><TXT>EU law is therefore applicable <HT TYPE="ITALIC">ratione temporis</HT> to the main proceedings.</TXT></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ><GR.SEQ LEVEL="3"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="ITALIC">3.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Which provisions of EU law are pertinent?</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0045"><NO.P>45.</NO.P><TXT>The Court has consistently held that, where a matter has been subject to exhaustive harmonisation at EU level, any national measure relating thereto must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not in the light of primary law<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0040"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20170622">22 June 2017</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">E. ON Biofor Sverige AB</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑549/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2017:490">EU:C:2017:490</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0076">76</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE> such as freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU and free movement of capital under Article 63 TFEU.</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="12"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0046"><NO.P>46.</NO.P><TXT>Directive 2013/36 entered into force on <DATE ISO="20130717">17 July 2013</DATE> and, subject to conditions, this directive guarantees the provisions of cross-border credit services.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0041"><P>Ibid., Article 33 and Annex 1.</P></NOTE> However, the contract in issue was signed, and the funds were supplied, on <DATE ISO="20070105">5 January 2007</DATE>, and in any event Directive 2013/36 is not a measure providing for exhaustive harmonisation.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0047"><NO.P>47.</NO.P><TXT>The Court has held recently that it <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0021" REF.END="QE0021"/>follows from recital 15 of [Directive 2013/36] that it seeks to achieve <HT TYPE="ITALIC">the necessary and sufficient degree of harmonisation</HT> to secure the mutual recognition of authorisation and of prudential supervision systems, making possible the granting of a single licence recognised throughout the European Union and the application of the principle of home Member State prudential supervision.<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0021" CODE="2019" ID="QE0021"/><NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0042"><P>My emphasis. See judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20180913">13 September 2018</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Buccioni</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑594/16</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:717">EU:C:2018:717</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0023">23</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0048"><NO.P>48.</NO.P><TXT>That being so, the main proceedings fall to be determined by primary EU law, and more specifically freedom to provides services under Article 56 TFEU, and to the exclusion of the free movement of capital under Article 63 TFEU.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0043"><P>It is to be noted that, on <DATE ISO="20070105">5 January 2007</DATE>, the date of the contract, Croatia was bound, under Article 57(1) of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part (<REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="026" PAGE.FIRST="3" DATE.PUB="2005">OJ 2005 L 26, p. 3</REF.DOC.OJ>), to refrain from taking <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0022" REF.END="QE0022"/>any measures or actions which render the conditions for the supply of services by Community or Croatian nationals or companies which are established<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0022" CODE="2019" ID="QE0022"/> in a Party to the Agreement, <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0023" REF.END="QE0023"/>other than that of the person for whom the services are intended significantly more restrictive as compared to the situation existing on the day preceding the date of entry into force of the Agreement<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0023" CODE="2019" ID="QE0023"/>, that is <DATE ISO="20050201">1 February 2005</DATE> (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-05-122_en.htm?locale=en). Pursuant to Article 57(2), disagreements with respect to Article 57(1) were to be resolved by consultation between the parties.</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0049"><NO.P>49.</NO.P><TXT>Under the established case-law, in order to determine whether national legislation falls within the scope of one or other of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty, the purpose of the legislation concerned must be taken into consideration.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0044"><P>See recently the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in <REF.DOC.ECR><NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Fidelity Funds</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑480/16</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2017:1015">EU:C:2017:1015</NO.ECLI>, point <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0017">17</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>, referring to judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20100701">1 July 2010</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Dijkman and Dijkman-Lavaleije</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑233/09</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2010:397">EU:C:2010:397</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0026">26</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>), and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20150521">21 May 2015</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Wagner-Raith</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑560/13</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2015:347">EU:C:2015:347</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0031">31</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0050"><NO.P>50.</NO.P><TXT>The court has held that, <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0024" REF.END="QE0024"/>in the light of the Treaty rules concerning the freedom to provide services, it is clear from the Court’s settled case-law that the business of a credit institution consisting of granting credit constitutes a service within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0024" CODE="2019" ID="QE0024"/>.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0045"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20120712">12 July 2012</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">SC Volksbank România</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑602/10</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2012:443">EU:C:2012:443</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0072">72</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE> National legislation <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0025" REF.END="QE0025"/>whose purpose relates principally to the provision of financial services falls within the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom to provide services, even though it could result in or involve capital movements<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0025" CODE="2019" ID="QE0025"/>.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0046"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20150521">21 May 2015</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Wagner-Raith</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑560/13</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2015:347">EU:C:2015:347</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0032">32</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> On the other hand, <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0026" REF.END="QE0026"/>national measures whose purpose relates at least principally to capital movements falls within the field of application of Article 64(1) TFEU<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0026" CODE="2019" ID="QE0026"/>.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0047"><P>Ibid., paragraph 34.</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0051"><NO.P>51.</NO.P><TXT>The Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> exhibits no feature suggesting that it aims at regulation of capital markets. On the contrary, it is addressed to relations between <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0027" REF.END="QE0027"/>debtors and unauthorised lenders<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0027" CODE="2019" ID="QE0027"/>, it is confined to <QUOT.START CODE="201C" ID="QS0028" REF.END="QE0028"/>credit contracts<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0028" CODE="201D" ID="QE0028"/> only, rather than concerning more generally the broader capital market. It is only credit contracts that are to be declared null and void.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0052"><NO.P>52.</NO.P><TXT>Given that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> impedes access to the Croatian market for the provision of credit for companies established outside of Croatia, it primarily affects freedom to provide services, and it is inarguable that this effect is merely secondary to any impediment to the free movement of capital.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0048"><P>Cf. judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20160526">26 May 2016</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">NN (L) International</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑48/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:356">EU:C:2016:356</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0039">39</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0041">41</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> The restrictive effects of those rules on the free movement of capital are merely an inevitable consequence of the restriction imposed on the provisions of services, and it is not necessary to consider whether the rules are compatible with Article 63 TFEU.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0049"><P>See by analogy judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20061003">3 October 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Fidium Finanz</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑452/04</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:631">EU:C:2006:631</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0049">49</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="13"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0053"><NO.P>53.</NO.P><TXT>It is to be noted that, in any event, restrictions on the free movement of capital are subject to compliance with the principle of proportionality<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0050"><P>E.g. judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20131003">3 October 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Itelcar</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑282/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:629">EU:C:2013:629</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0032">32</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> as much as restrictions on the freedom to provide services. As observed by Advocate General Kokott in her Opinion in <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation &amp; Maintenance Settlements</HT>, in purely intra-Union situations, as is the case in the main proceedings, the relationship between the freedom of establishment, the free movement of capital and the freedom to provide services may need not be resolved, since the conditions governing those fundamental freedoms are largely identical.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0051"><P><REF.DOC.ECR><NO.CASE>C‑646/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:1000">EU:C:2016:1000</NO.ECLI>, point <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0041">41</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>. The Advocate General refers to her Opinion in <REF.DOC.ECR><NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">SGI</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑311/08</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2009:545">EU:C:2009:545</NO.ECLI>, points <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0037">37</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>), where the Court held that the freedom of establishment was alone applicable — judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20100121">21 January 2010</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">SGI</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑311/08</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2010:26">EU:C:2010:26</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0036">36</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0054"><NO.P>54.</NO.P><TXT>Therefore, if the Court were to disagree with this aspect of my analysis, and find that the main proceedings are governed by the free movement of capital rather than the freedom to provide services, the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> would remain incompatible with EU law for non-compliance with the principle of proportionality (see analysis below at points 66 to 69).</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0055"><NO.P>55.</NO.P><TXT>Finally, the defendant is wrong when it argues that it was merely providing credit services within Austria, thereby implying that the cross-border element that is required before Article 56 TFEU can be applicable was absent from the main proceedings.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0056"><NO.P>56.</NO.P><TXT>It was uncontested that the loan was secured via an intermediary resident in Croatia, and that the loan in issue has been secured via a mortgage against a property located in Croatia, where the debtor is resident. This is sufficient in the light of the fact that, under the established case-law of the Court, in order for Article 56 TFEU to apply <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0029" REF.END="QE0029"/>there must be a foreign element<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0029" CODE="2019" ID="QE0029"/>,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0052"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20170613">13 June 2017</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑591/15</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2017:449">EU:C:2017:449</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0046">46</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> in the sense that Article 56 TFEU prohibits restrictions on freedom to provide services within the European Union in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended, and the situation is not one which is confined in <HT TYPE="ITALIC">all</HT> respects within a single Member State.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0053"><P>My emphasis. Ibid., paragraphs 32 and 33 and the case-law cited.</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ></GR.SEQ><GR.SEQ LEVEL="2"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD"><HT TYPE="ITALIC">B.</HT></HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD"><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Substance</HT></HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0057"><NO.P>57.</NO.P><TXT>The concept of a restriction extends to measures taken by a Member State which, although applicable without distinction, affect access to the market with regard to undertakings from other Member States and thereby hinder trade within the European Union.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0054"><P>Opinion of <REF.DOC.ECR><NAME.CASE>Advocate General Wahl, <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Laezza</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑375/14</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2015:788">EU:C:2015:788</NO.ECLI>, point <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0056">56</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>, referring to judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20131212">12 December 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">SOA Nazionale Costruttori</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑327/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:827">EU:C:2013:827</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0045">45</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20151015">15 October 2015</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Grupo Itevelesa and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑168/14</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2015:685">EU:C:2015:685</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0067">67</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> </TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0058"><NO.P>58.</NO.P><TXT>The Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> amounts to a restriction because contracts concluded without authorisation from the National Bank of Croatia are declared void. The parties are barred from completing the terms of a contract for a service in respect of nationals of a Member State (Austria) who are established in a Member State (Austria) other than that of the person for whom the services are intended (Croatia).</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0059"><NO.P>59.</NO.P><TXT>However, the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> is discriminatory against undertakings established outside of Croatia wishing to provide credit services in that Member State for two reasons.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0060"><NO.P>60.</NO.P><TXT>First, the definition of <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0030" REF.END="QE0030"/>unauthorised lender<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0030" CODE="2019" ID="QE0030"/> in Article 2 of the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> refers to <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0031" REF.END="QE0031"/>all moral persons…whose statutory seat is situated outside of Croatia<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0031" CODE="2019" ID="QE0031"/>. This means that the law does not apply to lenders established in Croatia.</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="14"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0061"><NO.P>61.</NO.P><TXT>Second, as pointed out by the Commission (see point 33 above) it would seem that unauthorised lenders established outside of Croatia are treated less favourably than unauthorised lenders inside Croatia, due to the absence of retroactivity in the law applicable to nullity of certain contracts entered into by unauthorised lenders established inside Croatia,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0055"><P>The Commission refers to Article 19j of the Law on consumer credit (<HT TYPE="ITALIC">Narodne novine</HT> Nos 75/2009, 112/2012, 143/2013, 147/2013, 9/2015, 78/2015, 102/2015 and 52/2016), inserted by the law modifying and complementing modifying and complementing the law on consumer credit (<HT TYPE="ITALIC">Narodne novine</HT> No 102/2015),</P></NOTE> and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of <DATE ISO="20160412">12 April 2016</DATE>, to the effect that nullity can only apply to consumer credit contracts.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0062"><NO.P>62.</NO.P><TXT>Thus, to the extent that the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> can be justified, it can only be on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health, laid down in Article 52(1) TFEU,<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0056"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20160128">28 January 2016</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Laezza</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑375/14</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2016:60">EU:C:2016:60</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0026">26</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> to the exclusion of certain overriding reasons of public interest, capable of justifying indistinctly applicable restrictions on the freedom to provide services, such as the fidelity of commercial contracts, consumer protection, protection of the recipient of services from services provided by unqualified persons, the maintenance of the good reputation of the national financial sector, and the proper functioning of financial services<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0057"><P>The Commission refers to the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19970709">9 July 1997</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">De Agostini and TV-Shop</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑34/95 to C‑36/95</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1997:344">EU:C:1997:344</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0053">53</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19910725">25 July 1991</DATE> <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑288/89</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1991:323">EU:C:1991:323</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0014">14</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20130718">18 July 2013</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Citroën Belux</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑265/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2013:498">EU:C:2013:498</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR> to <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0040">40</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20060330">30 March 2006</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑451/03</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2006:208">EU:C:2006:208</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0038">38</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19950510">10 May 1995</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Alpine Investments</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑384/93</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1995:126">EU:C:1995:126</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0044">44</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>); and Case E‑08/16 <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Netfonds</HT> [2017] EFTA Ct. Rep. 163, paragraph 113.</P></NOTE> (see Commission’s observations above, point 36).</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0063"><NO.P>63.</NO.P><TXT>At the hearing reference was made by Croatia to the protection of public order, preservation of the reputation of the financial sector and its functioning, protection of the fundamental rights of Croatian citizens, and particularly the weaker party to a contract, and consumer protection. Mention was also made of the fact that between 2000 and 2010 Croatian nationals had taken three thousand credits from unauthorised lenders, in the vicinity of EUR 360 million, but that precise data was not available due to the illegal nature of the activities. This was said to prove that the activity influenced the functioning of financial services in Croatia and the creation of a parallel system of illicit credits that harmed the financial system of the State and public order.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0064"><NO.P>64.</NO.P><TXT>This was also said by Croatia to affect the fate of many thousands of the citizens of Croatia, and the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> was a measure of last resort, and a suggestion was also made by Croatia that potential debtors of doubtful credit worthiness were contacted with a view to acquisition of their property, as evidenced by the fact that on the island of Rab 220 properties have been repossessed in this manner, and 344 procedures have been instituted.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0065"><NO.P>65.</NO.P><TXT>As already mentioned, over-riding reasons of public interest (see point 62 above) cannot be relied on with respect to discriminatory restrictions on freedom to provide services. Nor are the considerations referred to by Croatia sufficient to justify the law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> on the basis of any one of public policy, public security, or public health under Article 52(1) TFEU, given the breadth of the law’s scope.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0066"><NO.P>66.</NO.P><TXT>None of this is sufficient to provide a legitimate policy reason for the putting in place of a law which provides for the nullity of <HT TYPE="ITALIC">all</HT> loan contracts with international features, and extending back to contracts entered into up to 17 years ago. Generalised iterations of hardship that appear in Croatians written observations (see above, point 27) were not supplemented at the hearing to a degree that was sufficient to prove a legitimate basis of derogation, when balanced against the scale of the impediment to freedom to provide services imposed by the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>.</TXT></NP.ECR><?PAGE NO="15"?><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0067"><NO.P>67.</NO.P><TXT>Further, under the established case-law of the Court, specific requirements in terms of qualifications or authorisations imposed by the Member State in which the services are provided must be objectively necessary and must not exceed what is necessary to attain those objectives.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0058"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19910725">25 July 1991</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Säger</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑76/90</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1991:331">EU:C:1991:331</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0015">15</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0068"><NO.P>68.</NO.P><TXT>By virtue of its blanket nature, the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE> manifestly exceeds the limits of what was required to achieve a legitimate goal it might have pursued.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0069"><NO.P>69.</NO.P><TXT>Alleviation of the (public policy) wrong pursued could only be justified by a discriminatory and blanket rule declaring null and void all loan contracts with international features that have been in place for up to 17 years, (and which remained operative for many years, notwithstanding the absence of authorisation by the National Bank of Croatia) by presentation by Croatia of cogent evidence of a pressing problem requiring extreme action. It is established in the case-law that <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0032" REF.END="QE0032"/>it is the Member State wishing to rely on an objective capable of justifying the restriction of the freedom to provide services which must supply the court called on to rule on that question with all the evidence of such a kind as to enable the court to be satisfied that the measure does indeed comply with the requirements deriving from the principle of proportionality<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0032" CODE="2019" ID="QE0032"/>.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0059"><P>Judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20140430">30 April 2014</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Pfleger</HT> <HT TYPE="ITALIC">and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑390/12</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2014:281">EU:C:2014:281</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0050">50</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE> Such evidence has not been presented.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0070"><NO.P>70.</NO.P><TXT>Further, when Member States seek to justify rules restricting freedom to provide services, they are to comply with general principles of law, including legal certainty.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0060"><P>E.g. judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20171220">20 December 2017</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Global Starnet</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑322/16</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2017:985">EU:C:2017:985</NO.ECLI>, paragraphs <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0044">44</REF.NP.ECR> and <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0045">45</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR> and the case-law cited).</P></NOTE> Under the classic formulation of the Court in <HT TYPE="ITALIC">Fedesa</HT>, <QUOT.START CODE="2018" ID="QS0033" REF.END="QE0033"/>in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respect<QUOT.END REF.START="QS0033" CODE="2019" ID="QE0033"/>.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0061"><P>The judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="19901113">13 November 1990</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Fédesa and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑331/88</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:1990:391">EU:C:1990:391</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0045">45</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0071"><NO.P>71.</NO.P><TXT>The context of the main proceedings is Member State non-compliance with legal certainty when justifying restriction of free movement, but that makes no difference to the application of the substantive rule.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0062"><P>See e.g. the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20180920">20 September 2018</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Motter</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑466/17</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:758">EU:C:2018:758</NO.ECLI>, paragraph <REF.NP.ECR REF="NP0052">52</REF.NP.ECR></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> The case file features no evidence of consideration of the defendant’s legitimate expectations, even though the contract in issue was in place for ten years before the decision of the Croatian legislature, reflected in the Law of <DATE ISO="20170714">14 July 2017</DATE>, to have it declared null and void with retroactive effect.</TXT></NP.ECR><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0072"><NO.P>72.</NO.P><TXT>Finally, it is worth recalling that EU law indeed protects debtors who have been treated unfairly in the context of consumer credit contracts, including those featuring a foreign element. This is reflected in the Court’s voluminous case-law interpreting Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0063"><P><REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="095" PAGE.FIRST="29" DATE.PUB="1993">OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29</REF.DOC.OJ>.</P></NOTE> in such a factual context.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0064"><P>See e.g. recently the judgments of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20180920">20 September 2018</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">OTP Bank and OTP Faktoring</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑51/17</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:750">EU:C:2018:750</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>); of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20180531">31 May 2018</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Sziber</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑483/16</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2018:367">EU:C:2018:367</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>); and of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20170920">20 September 2017</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">Andriciuc</HT> <HT TYPE="ITALIC">and Others</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑186/16</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2017:703">EU:C:2017:703</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE> If such circumstances arise in Croatia, this case-law will self-evidently apply.<NOTE TYPE="FOOTNOTE" NUMBERING="ARAB" NUMBERING.CONTINUED="YES" NOTE.ID="E0065"><P>See also e.g. Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of <DATE ISO="20080423">23 April 2008</DATE> on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (<REF.DOC.OJ COLL="L" NO.OJ="133" PAGE.FIRST="66" DATE.PUB="2008">OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66</REF.DOC.OJ>) and the judgment of <REF.DOC.ECR><DATE ISO="20120712">12 July 2012</DATE>, <NAME.CASE><HT TYPE="ITALIC">SC Volksbank România</HT></NAME.CASE> (<NO.CASE>C‑602/10</NO.CASE>, <NO.ECLI ECLI="ECLI:EU:C:2012:443">EU:C:2012:443</NO.ECLI></REF.DOC.ECR>).</P></NOTE></TXT></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ></GR.SEQ><?PAGE NO="16"?><GR.SEQ LEVEL="1"><TITLE><TI><NP><NO.P><HT TYPE="BOLD">V.</HT></NO.P><TXT><HT TYPE="BOLD">Conclusion</HT></TXT></NP></TI></TITLE><NP.ECR IDENTIFIER="NP0073"><NO.P>73.</NO.P><TXT>I therefore propose the following answer to the first question referred by the Općinski sud u Rijeci (Municipal Court, Rijeka, Croatia):</TXT><P>In the circumstances of the main proceedings, Article 56 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State law which provides for the nullity of loan contracts, and retroactively from their date of conclusion, along with other legal acts that are consequential upon such loan contracts, when they are entered into between a lender established in a Member State other than of the person for whom the services are intended, although the lender was not in possession of the authorisations required from the competent authorities of that Member State at the time the contract was concluded.</P></NP.ECR></GR.SEQ></CONTENTS.CONCLUSION></CONCLUSION>