Average consumers not expected to conduct legal research - CJEU in Banco Santander (C-265/22)

 Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash

On July 13th, the CJEU issued a judgment further clarifying the principle of transparency under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive in variable-rate mortgage loan contracts, in the case Banco Santander (C-265/22). In such contracts the interest rate is variable with time, here: a new rate was to be determined every year for the following 12 months.  

In the Spanish case referred to the CJEU, consumers' interest rate was calculated with reference to the Mortgage Loan Reference Indices (IRPH). Consumers claimed that they were not informed as to the full impact of having such a reference rate, with relevant information either missing from the mortgage loan agreement or not being properly communicated to them. Whilst the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive was not yet applicable at the time the mortgage loan contract was concluded (2006), the Court could not consider whether the bank engaged in a misleading commercial practice. It was, however, able to assess that the UCTD may have been infringed if the bank's practice did not allow for applying to the IRPH a negative margin, in order to align the interest rate with the market rate.

The CJEU reiterates the main points on transparency from the Andriciuc and Others judgment (see our comment): Consumers require sufficient information to take prudent and well-informed decisions; mainly average consumers need to be able to estimate the total cost of the loan (para 53). This translates into an obligation, when variable-rate mortgage loan contracts are concluded, for average consumers to understand: the specific functioning of the method used for calculating that rate (para 55). This requires consumers to have easy access to the main elements relating to the calculation of the reference index (para 56). The national court in the given case needs to check whether the information provided in the agreement (with the index being published by the Bank of Spain and having been described in Annex VIII to the agreement) was sufficient for average consumers to become aware of the method of calculation of the variable interest rate (paras 57-58). Further, the national court should consider whether the lack of information in the loan agreement on a non-binding circular issued by the Bank of Spain could have been detrimental to the average consumer's ability to estimate the total loan cost. This in light of the circular stressing its significance for credit institutions (para 59). The CJEU seems to imply in para 60 that it would go to far to expect average consumers to conduct legal research, that is to try to find other documents of the Bank of Spain that could be applicable to the variable-rate mortgage loans, which have not been referenced in the agreement.

Whilst the CJEU reiterates the finding from the order in Gómez del Moral Guasch that the lack of transparency of a term does not render it, in itself, unfair, it would weigh in on the unfairness test (para 66). Further, the national court, when estimating whether the contract term introduces significant imbalance between parties' rights and obligations, has to look at what rules would apply in the absence of the agreement and assess to what extent the contractual provisions put the consumer at a detriment (Banco Primus - see our comment). With variable-rate mortgage loans this means comparing the interest rate to the statutory interest rate and the interest rates applied on the market at the date of conclusion of the agreement at issue... for a loan of a comparable sum and term (para 65).

UPDATED:

Readers interested in finding out more about the intricacies of the financial indexes used in Spain for calculating variable-rates in mortgage loan contracts, the legal value of circulars issued by the Bank of Spain, and the possible misconstruction of Spanish law by the CJEU - please check the comment of Prof. Ernesto Suárez from ESADE and UPF Law Schools in Spain.

Limits of unfair terms control, limits of harmonisation: CJEU in First Bank SA (C-593/22)

Is unfairness, like beauty, foremost in the eyes of the beholder('s Member State)?

Yesterday, the Court of Justice has decides a seemingly obvious case the systematic implications of which may be a bit more serious than they seem at first glance. In First Bank SA, the Court was asked to interpret the scope of application of Directive 93/13, in particular to the extent that its Article 1(2) declares that

"contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions and the provisions or principles of international conventions to which the Member States or the Community are party, particularly in the transport area, shall not be subject to the provisions of this Directive." 

This is a more radical exclusion than the one dictated by Article 4 for core terms, which was inserted at a relatively late stage in the legislative process and in any event requires terms to be drafted in plain and intelligible language, in accordance with the same Directive's Article 5. 

The justification for this exclusion is a presumption in favour of national laws - the latter being trusted to have established a fair balance between the rights and duties of the parties to the contract. The exclusion of Article 1(2), in this sense, is an absolute presumption: As the Court has put it, the idea of a national fair balance is not a requirement for the exclusion, but just a rationale. Whether the legislatively established balance is fair or not does not really matter. 

Against this background, some Romanian customers tried to challenge terms in credit contracts that put all the risk for currency exchange fluctuations onto them. It appeared plausible, however, to claim that such terms were in line with a general provision in Romanian contract law expressing the principle of "monetary nominalism", namely the idea that the debtor always owes the amounts agreed in the given currency and not a specific value in terms of purchase power. 

Two questions were raised in this context: 1) whether the exception only applies when the contract terms literally reproduce legal provisions; 2) whether it matters, to the ends of applying the exception, that the consumer may have not understood that the term at stake was in fact equivalent to valid provisions of national law. 

Both questions were answered rather swiftly and without intervention of an AG. As to the first, the Court [see para 25] concluded that national courts must ascertain whether the clause at stake incorporates the same "normative content" as the corresponding provisions of national law; in that case, the terms can be assumed to "reflect" legal provisions, with no need for literal reproduction. 

Only slightly more interestingly, the Court dismissed the idea that understanding by the consumer may matter: relying on an unpublished order [see para 32], the Court clarifies that it has already once established that the professional's compliance with its disclosure and transparency obligations is not relevant to the ends of Article 1(2). This is ultimately the necessary implication of assuming that the exclusion must be interpreted objectively and not on the basis of parties' understandings. 

All in all, this is hardly a surprising decision. However, from a consistency perspective, it brings to the fore interesting questions concerning the tensions implied in the Directive's original choices - isn't it a problem [that this not-all-too-restrictive interpretation of] Article 1(2) further undermines the harmonising effects of the Directive? How does it fit with the role of transparency in respect of core terms? Is it acceptable that obviously extractive interest fluctuation clauses are assessed differently in the different Member States? 

In other words, if the Directive trusts both states (in respect of national rules) and private autonomy (in respect of core terms and price-service ration), why does the subjective understanding of the consumer not play even the least role in (applying) the exception? It looks like the stark reliance on the exemption rules as entirely formalistically interpreted and objectively applied reinforces the differences between Member States and takes the position of individual contractual parties in very little consideration. The reader will point to the obviously different formulation of the two provisions in Article 1(2) and 4 explained at the beginning of this post; whether a different formulation in the future would be acceptable to Member States and not end up diluting rather than improving consumer protection, in all honesty, is a prediction we will have to leave for another day.

PS In case you are wondering, immediate inspiration for today's title was provided by a paper written by my colleague Chantal Mak in re Gutierrez Naranjo a few years ago - also on dynamics of EU and national unfair terms rules. You find it on SSRN.