The CJEU supported today the AG Bobek's opinion in the case Pouvin (C-590/17) that the notion of consumers and sellers from the Unfair Contract Terms Directive should be interpreted broadly. This means that also employees (and their spouses) who are acquiring a loan from their employers should be seen as consumers when these loans are meant to finance the purchase of a real estate for private purposes. Simultaneously, the employer in this situation would be seen as a seller within the meaning of the UCTD, as the loan contract would be provided within its professional activity, even if it not the employer's main professional activity.
We have previously commented on the AG Bobek's opinion in this case in detail (see AG Bobek in Pouvin C-590/17: The scope of the UCTD should be interpreted broadly), thus we send our readers to this post for the summary of the facts of the case and the main arguments raised. The CJEU repeats the argumentation that the exclusion of employment contracts from the scope of application of the UCTD is not applicable to other than employment contracts concluded between employees and their employers, as long as these contracts do not regulate the employment relationship or employment conditions (paras 31-32). What is then only important to ascertain, in order to determine whether an employee is a consumer, is the purpose for which he is purchasing goods/services (needs to be private) (paras. 23, 26). It remains irrelevant that not every consumer could have concluded this contract, as they were reserved only for employees of this particular undertaking, as long as the employees who were eligible to conclude this contract did this in their private capacity (para. 30). Further, the employer should be seen in this case as a 'seller', as even if their main professional activity lies in supplying energy rather than offering loan contracts, the latter activity is ancillary in their business dealings - allowing them to attract a skilled workforce (para. 42). Moreover, the employer has more resources and, therefore, more information than any natural person, his employee. This puts the employees at a contractual disadvantage that the application of the UCTD will remedy (para. 40).
In light of the earlier judgments in Karel de Grote case and Costea, this is by no means a surprising judgment.
