On 12 October, the CJEU decided on a slightly odd but in its way challenging case coming from Lithuania - Luminor (C-645/22).
In this case, the consumer had objected to the interest rate clause in a foreign currency loan. The clause had been held unfair by the Lithuanian Supreme Court after some initial reticence in lower instance. The consumer's wish with respect to the fate of the unfair clause was to convert the currency reference into Euros.
The court of appeals tasked with issuing a decision on the underlying dispute once the Supreme Court had decided that the term may be unfair drew the conclusion that the term was unfair and invalid - then it went on to an understandable but somewhat unusual move. Namely, the Court asked the parties to indicate how they would like the term to be replaced so that the contract could be upheld. The consumer insisted on their original claim - replacing the exchange currency with the Euro - while the defendant bank kept maintaining that the term was not unfair and the replacement not possible for want of applicable non-mandatory rules. The court of appeals went on to amend the contract as requested by the applicant and the defendant appealed.
The case, hence, ended up once again before the Supreme Court, which upheld the finding that the term was unfair - but what about the consequences? The Supreme Court found that the court of appeals had not run all the steps prescribed by the CJEU's case law - namely it had not ascertained whether the consequences of invalidating the contract as a whole would be "particularly unfavourable" for the consumer. Only when this is the case, we should recall here, can courts consider further actions than just removing the unfair terms.
Was this step one that could under no conditions be skipped, the Supreme Court now asked?
This wasn't a particularly open question, even though the Lithuanian courts seemed to think that acting immediately would be in line with the spirit of the Directive and CJEU case-law. The CJEU concluded, without AG opinion and with a reasoning that is not always entirely the clearest but is not surprising in its conclusions, that assessing whether the consequences of invalidating the contract would be "particularly unfavourable" for the consumer is a necessary step that national courts cannot set aside. Only when the prospect of such consequences is positively ascertained can further measures be taken - whether replacing the term by means of supplementary rules or "a provision applicable where the parties to the contract in question so agree" [see para 38]. This is also the case when the parties have made no submissions concerning the invalidation of the contract - the assessment of what consequences a terms' unfairness has for the contract must be carried out objectively under the applicable national law and this duty is not dependent on parties' submissions [para 37].
The Court does not touch on a further question that had been disputed between the parties but had not explicitly been included in the Lithuanian Supreme Court's preliminary questions: If the court invested with the dispute had found that the consequences of invalidating the contract would be "particularly unfavourable", what would be possible courses of action? Recent CJEU case-law has insisted that, when replacement by supplementary rules is not possible, courts must "take all measures" which are necessary to protect the consumer from particularly unfavourable consequences of unfairness - except by replacing the term [see para 34 with references to previous case-law]. What are these measures? The CJEU recalls that under its previous case-law such measures are "not exhaustive", but it is unclear whether what the Lithuanian Court of Appeals did - namely soliciting proposals form the parties and taking a decision itself - would fall within the admissible scope. How many more cases will it take until we figure this out?
