A couple of days ago the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C-58/18 Michel Schyns v Banifius Banque SA. Luckily, the CJEU proceeded to decide on the merits of the case in spite of the vagueness of the application (see our report on AG Kokott's opinion in this case here).
The facts of the case
The facts of the case
To remind ourselves, this case concerns the interpretation of Directive 2008/48/EC on Consumer Credit. In 2012 Mr Schyns concluded a contract with Home Vision for the installation of a photo-voltaic system (i.e. a solar power system) for the price of 40 002 euros. A couple of days later, Mr Schyns concluded a loan contract with the predecessor of Banifius Banque SA for 40 002 euros repayable in the next ten years in monthly installments of 472,72 euros. The loan was issued to Mr Schyns who subsequently transferred it to Home Vision. The photo-voltaic system was never installed, and Home Vision subsequently declared bankruptcy. In 2016 (after paying the installments for over 4 years) Mr Schyns commenced an action against the bank for setting the contract aside and terminating future performance.
The legal issues
This case raised interesting issues on the compatibility of Belgian law with Art. 5(6) of the Directive:
1) Are the rules requiring creditors to select a credit product suitable to the needs and the financial situation of the consumer incompatible with the above provision?
2) Are the rule requiring creditors to refuse to lend to consumers that cannot afford the loan contrary to the said provision?
1) Are the rules requiring creditors to select a credit product suitable to the needs and the financial situation of the consumer incompatible with the above provision?
2) Are the rule requiring creditors to refuse to lend to consumers that cannot afford the loan contrary to the said provision?
The scope of 'adequate explanations' in Art. 5(6) of the Directive
The CJEU followed AG Kokott's opinion and answered the first question negatively. It is therefore not contrary to Art. 5(6) of the Directive for national laws to require creditors to recommend the most suitable loan taking into consideration the purpose of the loan and the consumer's financial situation at the time when the contract is concluded.
Given that the Directive does not provide for this obligation, and being a full harmonization instrument, one might question whether the Member States may go beyond what is provided in the provision. The CJEU is of the opinion that they can because of the last sentence of Art. 5(6) of the Directive provides that the Member States may adopt the manner in which and the extent to which 'adequate explanations' are given (para. 29). According to the CJEU, adapting the manner and extent of adequate explanations can extend the creditor's obligation to select the most suitable loan. The CJEU also supported its reasoning by reference to Recital 27 and Art. 5(1) according to which consumers may need additional help in selecting the right credit products for their financial needs and wants (para.30), and creditors, as professional lenders are best placed to provide this help to consumers (para. 33).
The CJEU reiterated that, on the one hand, consumers need pre-contractual information to make informed decisions; on the other hand, this pre-contractual information might need to be supplemented with more personalized information for making a fully informed decision (para. 34). However, the CJEU also emphasized that despite the obligation of the creditor to inform consumers and even to select the right credit product consumers to stay ultimately responsible for the choices they are making (para. 34).
Refusing to lend under the Directive
The second question answered by the CJEU tackled the extent to which the selection of the right credit product can reach. What should creditors do if in selecting the suitable credit product they consider that consumers cannot afford any loan? Here too, the CJEU agreed with AG Kokott's opinion that it is not incompatible with the Directive for national laws to provide for an obligation to refuse to lend in a situation where creditors cannot be confident that consumers can dully fulfill their contractual obligations, i.e. pay the loan installments as they fall due (para. 49). Although the Directive does not directly provide for this obligation, this interpretation is compatible with Art. 8(1) of the Directive on responsible lending and creditworthiness assessment and with the broader EU consumer policy reflected in Art. 18(5) of Directive 2014/17/EU that directly provides for an obligation to refuse to lend (para. 46).
The CJEU followed AG Kokott's opinion and answered the first question negatively. It is therefore not contrary to Art. 5(6) of the Directive for national laws to require creditors to recommend the most suitable loan taking into consideration the purpose of the loan and the consumer's financial situation at the time when the contract is concluded.
Given that the Directive does not provide for this obligation, and being a full harmonization instrument, one might question whether the Member States may go beyond what is provided in the provision. The CJEU is of the opinion that they can because of the last sentence of Art. 5(6) of the Directive provides that the Member States may adopt the manner in which and the extent to which 'adequate explanations' are given (para. 29). According to the CJEU, adapting the manner and extent of adequate explanations can extend the creditor's obligation to select the most suitable loan. The CJEU also supported its reasoning by reference to Recital 27 and Art. 5(1) according to which consumers may need additional help in selecting the right credit products for their financial needs and wants (para.30), and creditors, as professional lenders are best placed to provide this help to consumers (para. 33).
The CJEU reiterated that, on the one hand, consumers need pre-contractual information to make informed decisions; on the other hand, this pre-contractual information might need to be supplemented with more personalized information for making a fully informed decision (para. 34). However, the CJEU also emphasized that despite the obligation of the creditor to inform consumers and even to select the right credit product consumers to stay ultimately responsible for the choices they are making (para. 34).
Refusing to lend under the Directive
The second question answered by the CJEU tackled the extent to which the selection of the right credit product can reach. What should creditors do if in selecting the suitable credit product they consider that consumers cannot afford any loan? Here too, the CJEU agreed with AG Kokott's opinion that it is not incompatible with the Directive for national laws to provide for an obligation to refuse to lend in a situation where creditors cannot be confident that consumers can dully fulfill their contractual obligations, i.e. pay the loan installments as they fall due (para. 49). Although the Directive does not directly provide for this obligation, this interpretation is compatible with Art. 8(1) of the Directive on responsible lending and creditworthiness assessment and with the broader EU consumer policy reflected in Art. 18(5) of Directive 2014/17/EU that directly provides for an obligation to refuse to lend (para. 46).
Our evaluation
This is an important judgment that aims to clarify the scope of Art. 5(6) of the Directive. It does extend the scope of the provision and clarifies that adequate explanations can go beyond mere explanations of standard information provided within the Directive; that creditors may also be obliged to select or recommend the suitable loan for consumers (taking into consideration the consumers financial situation at the time when the contract is being concluded and the purpose of the loan). It remains however unclear whether this means an obligation of the creditor to provide financial advice? AG Kokott seems to have thought that it does, however, the court does not make any specific reference to financial advice. Financial advice being an independently regulated activity raises the doubt that it falls within the scope of the Directive. It requires licensed financial advisers (and not every bank clerk dealing with loans will comply with this requirement) and the advisers should take at least some responsibility for the advise they have provided. Given the final reservation of the CJEU that consumers bear the ultimate responsibility for the taken loan leads me to think that adequate explanations do not extend as far as the provision of financial advice. This remains an interesting question though that will need clarification in the future. We may also think whether the question of responsibility is adequately addressed by the CJEU. If creditors are obliged to select the right or suitable loan for the consumer, should they not take the responsibility for it then?
The second aspect of the judgment is also an important development in clarifying the scope of the Directive. Given the full harmonization nature of the Directive and its silence on the creditors obligation following a creditworthiness assessment, the CJEU's contribution to consumer protection by specially enabling Member States to provide the sanction of refusal to lend is an important one. Probably following Directive 2014/17/EC, the CJEU highlighted that the bank should refuse to lend any time it estimates consumers are unable to fulfill their payment obligations as they fall due, arguably aiming to observe the goals of sustainable lending.
This is an important judgment that aims to clarify the scope of Art. 5(6) of the Directive. It does extend the scope of the provision and clarifies that adequate explanations can go beyond mere explanations of standard information provided within the Directive; that creditors may also be obliged to select or recommend the suitable loan for consumers (taking into consideration the consumers financial situation at the time when the contract is being concluded and the purpose of the loan). It remains however unclear whether this means an obligation of the creditor to provide financial advice? AG Kokott seems to have thought that it does, however, the court does not make any specific reference to financial advice. Financial advice being an independently regulated activity raises the doubt that it falls within the scope of the Directive. It requires licensed financial advisers (and not every bank clerk dealing with loans will comply with this requirement) and the advisers should take at least some responsibility for the advise they have provided. Given the final reservation of the CJEU that consumers bear the ultimate responsibility for the taken loan leads me to think that adequate explanations do not extend as far as the provision of financial advice. This remains an interesting question though that will need clarification in the future. We may also think whether the question of responsibility is adequately addressed by the CJEU. If creditors are obliged to select the right or suitable loan for the consumer, should they not take the responsibility for it then?
The second aspect of the judgment is also an important development in clarifying the scope of the Directive. Given the full harmonization nature of the Directive and its silence on the creditors obligation following a creditworthiness assessment, the CJEU's contribution to consumer protection by specially enabling Member States to provide the sanction of refusal to lend is an important one. Probably following Directive 2014/17/EC, the CJEU highlighted that the bank should refuse to lend any time it estimates consumers are unable to fulfill their payment obligations as they fall due, arguably aiming to observe the goals of sustainable lending.
