Polish bankruptcy law fails consumers with unfair loan terms - CJEU in Wiszkier (C-582/23)

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash

In July 2025, the CJEU issued a judgment in Wiszkier (C-582/23), concerning a Polish case involving a consumer mortgage loan indexed to Swiss francs. In this instance, the consumer had to declare bankruptcy after being unable to meet, among other obligations, their mortgage payments. Although the bankruptcy court found that the contract potentially contained unfair terms, raising the possibility of the contract being null and void, Polish law prohibits this court from examining this issue further. Under Polish law, even if the unfairness of contract terms had not been previously raised by the consumer, the bankruptcy court is only competent to approve or reject a repayment plan based on a list of claims drawn up by the trustee (paras 26-27). At most, the court may stay the proceedings and refer the unfairness' matter to another competent, supervisory authority (paras 29 and 45). 

Unfairness assessment by the bankruptcy court 

Decision: Incompatibility with EU law. Unsurprisingly, the CJEU found Polish law incompatible with EU law. Specifically, it held that the Unfair Contract Terms Directive precludes national provisions that prevent a bankruptcy court from examining the unfairness of contract terms in a loan agreement underlying a claim included in the list of claims, or from amending that list, where no such assessment has been conducted by the authority preparing the list (para 58).

Although EU law leaves enforcement of consumer protection rules against unfair contract terms to the Member States, such national rules must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (para 40). The CJEU found that the principle of effectiveness was violated in this case. While Polish law allows a bankruptcy court to stay proceedings so that a supervisory court may assess the potential unfairness of contract terms, this process introduces delay and exposes consumers to further financial hardship. During the stay, the bankrupt's salary continues to be withheld by the bankruptcy estate, which may discourage consumers from raising objections based on unfair terms (para 46). Notably, monthly repayments set in bankruptcy proceedings are often lower than the salary amounts withheld during the proceedings (para 47), exacerbating the financial strain. Moreover, in this case, although the consumer had acknowledged all the claims listed by the trustee, this was done without legal representation and likely without understanding that an unfairness objection could be raised (para 52). The consumer only raised this issue. through legal counsel, once the case reached the bankruptcy court (para 53). The CJEU clarified that it is irrelevant whether the list of claims has become res judicata (para 55).

Interim measures by the bankruptcy court

Decision: The CJEU further ruled that national law must enable bankruptcy courts to grant interim measures to protect consumers while the fairness of a claim included in the list is under judicial review.

The Court reiterated that ensuring effective consumer protection against unfair terms may require granting interim measures, for example, adjusting monthly instalments during prolonged proceedings to prevent consumers from being forced to pay more than the amount actually due if the unfair terms were ultimately invalidated (paras 67-68). As noted by the referring court, the fear of higher interim payments to the bankruptcy estate may deter consumers from raising unfairness objections altogether (para 69). The court responsible for granting interim measures must consider: "whether there is sufficient evidence that the contractual terms concerned are unfair, whether there is a real possibility that the bankruptcy estate is already sufficiently funded to satisfy the creditors, with the exception, as the case may be, of the claim concerned, as well as the bankrupt's financial situation and the risk of that person having to endure a prolongation of the bankruptcy proceedings which could result in an unwarranted deterioration in his or her financial situation pending the conclusion of those proceedings." (para 71)

Delayed bags, immediate compensation rights - CJEU in Iberia (C-292/24)

On June 5, the CJEU issued a new judgment interpreting the Montreal convention, which governs rules for international air carriage, in the case Iberia (C-292/24). 

The case arose when passengers traveling from Frankfurt am Main (Germany) to Panama City (Panama), with a layover in Madrid (Spain), discovered that their checked-in luggage had not arrived in Panama. They reported the baggage as lost to Iberia and informed the airline that, unless they received an update within three days, they would buy replacement items and continue with their travel plans - which they ultimately did. They also had to rebook their outgoing flights from Panama City due to the delay. The luggage was eventually delivered to Panama City five days after their scheduled arrival. The passengers subsequently sought reimbursement for the cost of replacement items, additional travel expenses, and the rebooked flights. 

The legal question concerned the interpretation of the reporting deadlines set out in Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention in cases of delayed or lost baggage. Article 31(2) states that 

'the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within seven days from the date of receipt in the case of checked baggage and fourteen days from the date of receipt in the case of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the baggage or cargo have been placed at his or her disposal.'

The key issue was whether this deadline prevents passengers from claiming compensation for damage caused by a baggage delay before the baggage is returned, or whether they may do so only after they receive the baggage as the full scope of their damage may only then materialise. 

The CJEU adopted an interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention that is favourable to passengers. It held that passengers may submit a claim for damages arising from delayed baggage before the baggage is returned. According to the Court, the 21-period specified in Article 31(2) marks the latest possible moment to file a complaint - but not the earliest (para 20). By applying a literal interpretation of the provision, the CJEU found that passengers are entitled to submit a claim for compensation at any time between the moment their baggage is delayed and the expiry of the 21-day period following its return (para 21). 

Interestingly, the CJEU also noted that this interpretation benefits air carriers, as well. Early notification allows airlines to investigate the situation promptly, potentially mitigating the damage, and collect evidence to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the harm (paras 29-30).

Consumers' access to interim relief - the CJEU in Myszak (C-324/23)

In case C-324/23 (Myszak) the Court of Justice of the European Union was asked again to deal with the consequences of mortgage loan agreements indexed in Swiss francs. 

The case concerns a mortgage loan contract indexed in Swiss francs whose voidance was claimed by three consumers against the Getin Noble Bank S.A. Consumers claimed the unfairness of the contractual term in question, according to Directive 93/13/EEC. Accordingly, sought interim relief in court, in order to suspend the execution of the contract containing unfair terms.

Meanwhile, however, the Bank went through a resolution procedure. Polish law bars the possibility to ask interim measures against bank dealing with special resolution procedures, according to the law implementing Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive). 

The Polish court asked the CJEU about the compatibility with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of UCTD and Article 70(1) and (4) of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive of the national law. Pursuant to relevant Polish law it is not possible to grant a consumer’s application for an interim measure to suspend, during the course of the court proceedings, the obligation to pay the loan instalments under a loan agreement which is likely to be declared invalid, on the sole ground that it was granted by a bank declared to be under special resolution.

The CJEU affirmed that a statutory provision barring consumers to obtain interim relief during resolution procedures impairs consumers to exercise their rights, and thus goes against EU law.

The Court invoked the principle of effectiveness, claiming that impeding consumers to exercise their rights because of a bank’s resolution would impact on the effective enforcement of the UCTD. The Court of Justice has, on a number of occasions, made general statements on the need for national courts to be able to adopt interim measures for the full effectiveness of court decisions concerning rights granted by EU law (see, among others, Case C-213/89, Factortame).

Although the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive allows Member States’ laws to specify and define the procedural means of its implementation, national laws implementing it should not impede consumer protection. Accordingly, a provision barring the enforcement of UCTD, precluding adoption of interim measures, is contrary to EU law.

The decision reinforces a well-established pattern in the Court of Justice’s rulings: when in doubt, in favour of the consumer!

Deferred payment option as a ‘promotional offer’: CJEU in bonprix (C-100/24)

In bonprix (Case C-100/24), the CJEU was asked to clarify the meaning of ‘promotional offers’ under Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive. According to this provision, any such offers must clearly outline the conditions for eligibility. The disputed practice was an advertising message that bonprix, an online trading company, put on its website: ‘Convenient purchase on invoice’. It was contested that this message is misleading as it leaves out the fact that such a payment arrangement is subject to a prior assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness. It is thus necessary to establish whether the message on bonprix’ website is a ‘promotional offer’ in the first place – a concept that is not directly defined under the Directive.

First, according to a literal interpretation, ‘promotional offers’ can include ‘any form of communication by which a provider seeks to promote goods or services to the recipient by giving him or her an advantage’ (para 24), which is still rather broad.

Second, according to a contextual interpretation, since Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive included some illustrative examples such as ‘discounts, premiums and gifts’, for ‘reasons of consistency’, ‘promotional offers’ must have ‘the characteristics common to’ these examples (para 25). The CJEU outlined three such characteristics: the conferral of an advantage that is

1. objective, i.e. not left to ‘the subjective assessment of that recipient’ (para 26),
2.  certain, i.e. ‘does not depend on chance or selection’ (para 27, per the distinction between ‘promotional offers’ under Art. 6(c) and ‘promotional competitions and games’ under Art. 6(d)), and that is
3. ‘capable of influencing that recipient’s consumption behaviour’ (para 28).

In response to bonprix’ arguments, the CJEU added that ‘promotional offers’ are neither defined by ‘the existence of a substantial monetary advantage for its recipient’ nor by ‘its exceptional nature’ (paras 29-31). The form and extent of the advantage is ‘immaterial’ and may be ‘monetary, legal or mere convenience, such as to enable the recipient to gain time’ (para 32). In the context of the disputed practice, the CJEU highlighted some potential benefits of bonprix’ offer: the deferral of payment provides the consumer with ‘a cash advance’ and represents ‘a monetary advantage, albeit minimal’ (para 43); in the event of extinguishment of the contract due to withdrawal or termination, ‘the purchaser does not need to claim reimbursement of the price’ (para 44).

Third, according to a teleological interpretation, the CJEU confirmed that subjecting the disputed practice to Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive can ‘contribute to a high level of consumer protection, without, however, entailing unreasonable economic burdens for service providers’ (para 34). By informing the consumer that the deferred payment option is subject to a creditworthiness test and thereby making the consumer realise that they may be refused the option, it ensures consumer protection ‘at all stages of contact between the provider and the recipient of a service’ (para 35). Finally, the CJEU also added that its interpretation of Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive is fully compatible with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (particularly its Art. 3(4) and its general prohibition of misleading practices) and the Consumer Rights Directive (particularly its Art. 6(8)).

The Court’s broad interpretation of ‘promotional offers’ should be welcomed as a positive move to strengthen consumer protection through information. It represents a more inclusive understanding of the factors that drive consumers’ purchase decisions, in particular convenience. Of course, it should also be borne in mind that the disputed practice in this case is in any event a ‘commercial practice’ within the scope of EU law.

Comparison websites outside scope of comparative advertising: CJEU in HUK-Coburg (C‑697/23)

For those who are on the lookout for good value for money, price comparison websites are a go-to tool. While ‘comparative advertising’ is regulated by Directive 2006/114/EC, it is unclear whether comparison services offered by third-party websites fall within its scope. The CJEU clarified this point in Case C‑697/23.

The case concerned Check24, a website that compares various products, including insurance packages, by awarding scores based on criteria like price. The website also enables, as an intermediary, the conclusion of contracts between customers and insurance providers. HUK-Coburg, whose insurance products were listed on Check24, sued the platform for violating the objectivity requirement under Art. 4(c) of Directive 2006/114/EC. Though the question pertains to the interpretation of Art. 4(c), the CJEU instead focused on the scope of the Directive, namely its definition of ‘comparative advertising’ under Article 2(c).

The CJEU first recalled that the key element of ‘comparative advertising’ is the identification of ‘a competitor’ – either of the advertiser or of the advertised goods/services. Thus, Check24 must be a competitor of HUK-Coburg to fall under the scope of the Directive (para 28). To assess this, the CJEU proposed ‘an analysis of the possible substitutability of the services offered by the parties […] in order to determine whether they operate in the same market’ (para 34, emphasis added). Pending further verification by the referring court, the CJEU pointed out that Check24 itself does not provide insurance services but merely offers comparison and intermediary services, meaning that it offers non-substitutable services to those of HUK-Coburg and operates in a different service market (para 37). The concept of ‘comparative advertising’ under Article 2(c) thus does not include such an online comparison service or such a mere intermediary service.

While it makes sense that third-party comparison services are not regulated as comparative advertising between competitors, these services are still subject to other consumer protection instruments, such as the Consumer Rights Directive and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which, according to the Commission, remain under-enforced.