Bad faith of sellers in unfairness cases - CJEU in CAJASUR Banco (C-35/22)

Tierra Mallorca on Unsplash

In a recent case, from 13 July, in CAJASUR Banco (C-35/22), the CJEU reflects further on the need of national laws providing effective and equivalent consumer protection against unfair contract terms. In this Spanish case, the consumer succeeded in claiming unfairness of terms in a mortgage loan agreement. However, the bank appealed the order to repay consumer fees for the legal proceedings. Pursuant to Spanish law, only defendants who were in bad faith would need to pay such costs. The bad faith would be established if before the legal action the bank 'has received a due and substantiated demand for payment, mediation proceedings have been initiated or a request for conciliation has been made...' (paras 9 and 29-30). The consumer did not take such actions in this case. 

The question posed to the CJEU boiled down to: Whether if national laws prevented consumers from claiming back costs of legal proceedings, when such consumers have not taken any actions prior to brining proceedings against sellers, this would contradict Article 6 UCTD - providing effective sanctions against unfairness of contract terms. As the Member States have procedural autonomy, they may set rules regarding costs of legal proceedings, provided that these comply with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence (para 24). The CJEU reiterates its various previous rulings on the impact that awarding (or not) of costs may have on consumers' willingness to exercise their rights against unfair contract terms (paras 25-28). 

In light of facts of the given case, what struck the CJEU was the one-sidedness of the Spanish law requirement to initiate mediation/conciliation before legal proceedings. This burden is purely placed on consumers as plaintiffs in cases against unfairness (para 31). Whilst taking of such steps may help with releasing the pressure on the judicial system (argument of the Spanish Government), the CJEU legitimately then expects this burden to be shared between the parties. For example, banks could be expected to pro-actively approach consumers with contracts containing terms that have been established as unfair in settled national case law (para 32). If national law places such burdens solely on consumers, it does not encourage sellers 'to draw, voluntarily and spontaneously, all the consequences of the case-law on unfair contract terms and thus promotes the continuation of the effects of those terms.' (para 34). The CJEU, expecting active behaviour from the sellers, then continues to state that if in case of 'inertia on the part of the seller...' in contacting consumers and disapplying unfair terms to them, consumers start legal actions, this should not be held against them (para 35). Conclusively, the CJEU then recognises that national law could choose bad faith as a requirement for awarding costs of proceedings (para 38). However, national courts should be ready to recognise such bad faith also when banks, aware of consumers' weaker position, wait with admitting the claim until consumers' take action, just to avoid having to pay the costs of proceedings, instead of informing them of terms' unfairness of their own will (paras 36-37).

What looked at a glance as another judgment focused on a small procedural issue, actually  could have far-reaching consequences for consumer protection. If the reasoning of the CJEU is extrapolated to other situations when sellers have knowledge of unfairness of consumer terms but do not act on it, which would lead to the recognition of sellers acting in bad faith, in various national laws this could have further ramifications for award of damages, burden of proof, etc.

Knowledge is key: judgment in Joined Cases C-698/18 and C-699/18 Raiffeisen Bank and Société Générale

Earlier this month, the Court of Justice of the European Union gave judgment in Raffeisen Bank and Société Générale, two joined cases from Romania on limitation periods and Directive 93/13/EEC. This is not the first time we write about this topic; see e.g. our blog on Cofidis II, where it was observed that limitation periods as such are not necessarily incompatible with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in EU law.[1] But they can be, as the CJEU's judgment of 9 July 2020 demonstrates, where they prevent consumers from claiming reimbursement of amounts paid on the basis of unfair terms in a credit agreement.

Source: wikipedia.org

Earlier case law of the CJEU reveals that knowledge or awareness on the part of consumers of their rights plays a crucial role in the assessment of cases on limitation periods.[2] Raiffeisen Bank confirms this.The CJEU reiterates that reasonable time limits for bringing proceedings, laid down in the interests of legal certainty, do not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult as such for consumers to exercise their rights conferred by EU law, if such time limits are sufficient in practical terms to enable them to prepare and bring an effective action. Under the rules at issue in Raiffeisen, however, a three-year limitation period started to run from the time when the contract - here: a credit agreement - had been performed in full. That is when the consumer was presumed to have known of the unfair nature of one or more unfair terms of that agreement. According to the CJEU, it is nevertheless possible that the consumers involved are not aware of this, which means the limitation period is likely to have expired before they can take action. This runs counter to the principle of effectiveness. Moreover, performance of the contract does not retroactively alter the fact that the consumer was in a weak position at the time it was concluded. The protection of Directive 93/13 is therefore not limited solely to the duration of the performance of the contract in question.

Under Romanian law, the unenforceability of unfair terms is equated with absolute nullity, the effect of which is restitutio in integrum. The limitation period normally begins to run when the court establishes the cause of action, not on the date of full performance of the contract. The CJEU holds that such a difference in treatment of consumers cannot be justified on grounds of legal certainty. Thus, the rules appear to run counter to the principle of equivalence as well.

In Case C-698/18, the action for reimbursement was brought within three years after the agreement had expired. The CJEU's judgment suggests that this does not matter; it is inconceivable that a limitation period would expire when the consumers involved are not even aware of the unfair nature of the terms of the agreement.
In Case C-698/18, the action was brought 11 years after the agreement had expired. But the agreement was concluded in 2003, i.e. before Romania's accession toe the EU in 2007. Thus, the CJEU did not have jurisdiction.

An important difference between Raiffeisen and Cofidis II is that in Cofidis, the consumer was the defendant, not the claimant. In that case, consumers should not lose their rights merely because a claim against them is brought after expiration of a limitation period. Again, what is decisive here is the risk that they have never been aware of their rights before they were able to invoke them. Knowledge is key.


[1] See also our blog on OPR-Finance. 
[2] See further this contribution by Daniël Stein, available only in Dutch. 

CJEU on equivalence as to consumer associations' intervention in individual proceedings (C-448/17)

One of the latest instalments in unfair terms adjudication was delivered yesterday by the Court of Justice in case C-448/17 (EOS KSI Slovensko), concerning a Slovak consumer who had concluded a consumer credit contract. 

In this case, the most prominent substantive problem with the contract itself was that it did not mention the APR. Only a mathematical formula was provided, with no further information that would allow the consumer to calculate the applicable rate. 

The creditor - a debt recovery company - sought an order for payment, which was granted though a procedure taking place on the basis of documental evidence, without a hearing. Under Slovakian law, this procedure involved not a judge but a civil clerk. Once the order was granted, without any assessment being carried out under unfair terms rules, nor consideration being given to the lack of APR, the consumer had 15 days to file their opposition. This, in turn, required an indication of substantive reasons for opposing enforcement. 

Intervention by an interested consumer association was rejected in follow-up proceedings on the basis of the fact that previous action by the consumer was required before other interested parties could intervene - in other words, the association could intervene in a case that was already pending thanks to the consumer's action, but not initiate a new case. 

A Slovak court took stakes with a number of issues in the scenario above: 

First, it asked whether it was open to Slovak law to restrict the possibility for interventions by consumer associations in the way it did, in particular in light of the fact that for claims regulated entirely by "Slovak" (vis à vis "European") law the criteria for considering a case to be pending are looser than in cases where EU consumer law plays a role. 

The Court of Justice answered this question by, on the one hand, re-affirming that article 7 of the UCTD does not require member states to allow consumer associations to intervene in individual proceedings (para 41 - no problems, thus, on the effectiveness front); on the other hand, the Court recalls, in these cases the member states are anyhow bound by the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. In particular, the latter principle precludes a national legislation which sets different pendency requirements for purely "national" cases and cases connected to EU (consumer) law. Thus, should the national court indeed find the existence of one such difference here, the stricter pendency rule would be incompatible with EU law (para 40). 

Second, the referring court asked the CJEU to test the procedure for granting the order for payment and, subsequently, the enforcement, for compatibility with the Directive. The CJEU recalls its previous case-law to the effect that the absence of unfairness assessment in the order for payment procedure is not per se problematic as long as the consumer is protected by the possibility of (ex officio) unfair terms control at the stage of enforcement.  However, insofar as Slovak law requires the debtor to file a motivated objection within 15 days, there is a concrete risk that no assessment will take place since the requirements make it rather difficult for the consumer to take action (para 53). This situation is not in line with the Directive. 

Third, concerning the specific contract at stake, the court asked whether the provisions in the credit contract could be considered as transparent in spite of the lack of mention of the APR and interest rate. Mentioning of the APR is required on the basis of the 1987 consumer credit directive - but what impact does a violation of that requirement have on  the unfairness assessment? According to the CJEU, the consequence of this omission is that the consumer cannot be considered as liable for having actually accepted the terms of the contract (para 67), with the consequence that, to the ends of unfair terms control, the missing APR can be considered as a decisive factor in assessing whether the interest terms are drafted in plain intelligible language. This finding, of course, will then open the way to a possible finding of unfairness. 

Report on the procedural protection of consumers

The European Commission has published a long-awaited report (see our previous blog posts here, here and here) on the impact of national civil procedure on the protection of consumers under EU law; click here for the press release and the full report. The report has been prepared by a consortium of European universities led by the MPI Luxembourg for Procedural Law. The study, which is based on national reports from the EU Member States as well as an online questionnaire and interviews, evaluates whether and to what extent national procedural laws and practices ensure the effective procedural protection of European consumers. The report clearly illustrates that "procedural law matters" [scroll down for more].

Source: www.mpi.lu

As the report points out (p. 28), the application and enforcement of (substantive) EU consumer law largely takes places at the national level. However, there is no equal or level playing field across the EU, and national courts are facing difficulties in understanding and implementing the case law of the CJEU concerning procedural consumer protection. The main uncertainties and divergences pertain to the concept of a 'consumer' (e.g. how to recognise a 'consumer dispute', especially in case of default), the approach to judicial activism and ex officio control (in 'ordinary' proceedings, appeal, payment order and enforcement proceedings), jurisdiction and arbitration issues (cf. the Brussel Ibis Regulation) and the interfaces between individual and collective actions. 

The report consists of an executive summary, followed by five Chapters: (1) the general structure of procedural consumer protection (different systems and mechanisms for enforcement), (2) access to justice (costs, legal aid and knowledge), (3) consumer actions before national courts ('party disposition' vs. an active court, ex officio application of EU consumer law, different types of procedures), (4) actions for collective redress (injunctive vs. compensatory relief, staying of claims, binding effect), and (5) alternative dispute resolution (scope, voluntary or mandatory nature, judicial review). Each chapter provides a summary of the status quo, identified problems and, finally, proposals, improvements and recommendations. In addition, the Annex contains selected data from the national reports. 

The report finds that (p. 29) it "might be advisable to consider providing for minimum standards of consumer protection in civil proceedings in order to improve consumers’ access to justice and increase legal certainty and transparency in these proceedings" [emphasis added]. It also "appears advisable to clarify and strengthen the role of consumer protection associations when filing individual or collective claims". See in this respect the report on collective redress mechanisms, published simultaneously. 

The Commission has already announced a 'New Deal for Consumers', to further strengthen ways of enforcement and redress for consumers. 

Between equivalence and effectiveness: Opinion of AG Sharpston on unfair terms control in default proceedings

Today, Advocate General Sharpston delivered her Opinion in a Belgian case (C-147/16: Karel de Grote Hogeschool v Susan Kuijpers) on the scope of Directive 93/13 as well as the powers and obligations of national courts under that Directive. The case concerns the 'Europeanization' of (national) civil procedure and the 'proceduralization' of unfair terms control. More particularly, it concerns the role of the civil court in default proceedings, i.e. when the defendant does not appear.

Judicial districts in Belgium

A claim was brought by an educational establishment against a student who had borrowed the amount of money she needed to pay her registration fee, but subsequently defaulted on her repayments. The student did not take any (active) part in the proceedings the school initiated to recover the outstanding debt. In Belgium, when a judgment in default is given, civil courts are only required to apply national rules of public policy (Article 806 of the Judicial Code, amended in 2015). This caused uncertainty within the judiciary as regards the rules on unfair contract terms [*]. Could and should a court examine of its own motion (ex officio) whether the contract at hand falls within the scope of the Directive as implemented in Belgian law, and if so, whether its terms are unfair?

AG Sharpston first reiterates that the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States is limited by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. She then refers to Asturcom (C-40/08) to point out that the principle of effectiveness "cannot be stretched so far as to mean that a national court is required to make up fully for the total inertia on the part of the consumer" (para 28). However, the principle of equivalence entails that inasmuch as the court is required to assess whether a term conflicts with domestic rules of public policy, it must do the same with the rules under Directive 93/13. Thus, those rules should be treated as rules of public policy.

In a forthcoming article [cited below], the Belgian scholar Janek Nowak explains the two approaches very clearly. The difficulty with the effectiveness approach is, in short, that Belgian civil courts would have to disregard Article 806 insofar as it limits them in their tasks. The equivalence approach is less 'disruptive': it reconciles EU law requirements with national civil procedure, while it also avoids the issue of the (lack of) horizontal direct effect of directives. AG Sharpston shares the Belgian Government's view that Article 806 provides room for a broad interpretation of the national court's powers and obligations in light of Directive 93/13. Yet she also refers to the effective legal protection guaranteed by the Directive which must be ensured "whatever the rules of domestic law":  the Directive must be applied "irrespective of the status afforded to the national rules" implementing it in the national legal order and irrespective "of the parties' procedural actions or submissions" (para 33). The only exception is that national courts do not have to - and cannot - intervene where none of the parties has brought proceedings. In all other cases, they must exercise ex officio control.

The second part of the Opinion addresses the meaning of 'seller or supplier'. AG Sharpston advocates a broad interpretation (see para 67). She focuses on "the capacity of the contracting parties" (para 66). In this respect, there is a link between the first and the second part: the substantive imbalance between the parties (in terms of both bargaining power and level of knowledge) is accentuated by a procedural inequality. A consumer is, in the words of AG Sharpston, "likely to find himself on the receiving end" of the proceedings, which "will affect his legal situation, whether he participates in the proceedings or not" (para 32). This would justify an active role of national (civil) courts as decentralized EU-judges, even though such a role might 'clash' with their position in the domestic (procedural) framework. Especially in default proceedings with consumers as defendants, national courts struggle with the practical problem of having to deal with a great number of cases, insufficient factual information and the need to take the interests of the claimant into account (as follows from the CJEU's case law on the right to a fair hearing as safeguarded by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). The stream of preliminary references on procedural questions is not likely to stop anytime soon.

[*] J.T. Nowak, 'On the impact of EU law on national civil procedure. Some considerations and recent examples from Belgium', draft paper (to be published) presented on 25 November 2016 during the 21st annual conference of the Ius Commune Research School.