To continue our reporting on CJEU judgments concerning unfair contract terms in mortgage credit contracts denominated in Swiss francs, let us look at three recent judgments in Polish cases, all delivered on 16 April. Each of these cases addresses the compatibility of national procedural rules governing limitation periods for banks' restitution claims following the invalidation of a credit agreement under the UCTD.
C-901/24 Falucka (see here)
In this case, the CJEU held that a consumer's declaration, made during preliminary proceedings for the invalidation of a loan agreement containing unfair terms, that they are aware of an obligation to repay the sums received from the bank, constitutes an acknowledgment of debt (para 44). National law may treat such an acknowledgment as interrupting the limitation period applicable to the bank's restitution claim (para 25). Consequently, the Court found that bank's legitimate interests (limited to reimbursement of the capital paid out - para 35) are protected where a loan agreement is invalidated after the limitation period for the bank's restitution actions has otherwise expired. This approach prevents consumer's unjust enrichment (para 36), without undermining the objectives of the UCTD.
C-752/24 Jangielak (see here)
Here, the CJEU confirmed the compatibility with EU law of a common procedural practice in Poland whereby banks bring counterclaims for restitution of capital paid under a loan agreement before the consumer's claim for invalidation on the grounds of unfair contract terms has been finally resolved (para 44). Bringing such counterclaims at an early stage may interrupt the running of the limitation period for the banks' restitution actions, thereby giving effect to the principle of equality of arms (para 36). However, the Court emphasised that this procedural possibility must not significantly hinder consumers in the effective enforcement of their rights. Accordingly, national courts should consider staying bank's restitution actions until the consumer's claims have been resolved (para 42). Moreover, procedural costs must not operate as a deterrent preventing consumers from further pursuing their rights under EU consumer protection law (para 42).
C-753/24 Rzepacz (see here)
Finally, Rzepacz addressed the question of whether a bank may reclaim the capital paid under an invalidated loan agreement where the limitation period for its restitution claim has already expired under national law. The CJEU acknowledged that exceptional circumstances may arise in which considerations of equity justify such recovery (para 37). Where national procedural rules exceptionally permit courts to disregard the expiry of a limitation period, such rules are not, as such, incompatible with the EU consumer protection framework (para 30). In applying those rules, however, national courts must rely solely on objective criteria. These may include the excessive length of proceedings concerning the invalidation of the loan agreement (para 29), the length of the limitation period, the time elapsed between its expiry and the submission of the claim, and the conduct of both parties during the proceedings (para 32). Further, national courts aiming for an equitable resolution must give due effect to the principle of effectiveness. This requires careful consideration of the impact of their decision on consumers' ability to enforce their rights without facing significant obstacles, e.g., being required to bear disproportionate court costs if proceedings are continued after the limitation period has expired (paras 33-35).
