Restoring an effective balance through court-guided negotiations? CJEU in Banca B.SA v A.A.A (C-269/19)

 Dear readers, 

if you were hoping for some inspiring CJEU news to keep your mind away from pandemics, impending festivities and other disasters, we may this week have just what you were looking for - or not, but only time will tell :)

Yesterday, the CJEU's first chamber delivered a judgement sparked by the creativity of Romanian courts which could make courts in other Member States take a closer look at their potential role in unfair terms dispute. To understand the case, it is useful to take a small step back.

As you may remember, in a string of cases culminating famously in the Dziubak decision, the court had established that unfair terms may not be replaced unless two+1 conditions are fulfilled:

a) the contract must, under the applicable national law, not be capable of existence without the unfair term 

and

b) the invalidity must be to the consumer's disadvantage. 

If these two conditions apply, the term may be replaced with otherwise applicable non-mandatory rules - the existence of which is a third condition. What if there are no otherwise applicable rules?

In the case at stake, Romanian courts were struggling with exactly this problem. While on occasion, as in Dziubak, a consumer may actually prefer the whole contract to be invalidated, in several Romanian cases courts were left alone with the prospect of invalidating contracts or facing a stalemate. Some courts had sought to apply non-mandatory rules which had entered in force at a later stage and were thus not applicable to the contentious contracts, but other courts had decided to instate "regulated" negotiations between the parties. In its decision, the CJEU endorses - and, to a certain extent, even requires, this approach, making space for a new wave of procedural innovation in unfair terms adjudication. To what extent this will materialise, though, will of course depend on a number of factors, including importantly national legislation. Let's see what the court says. 

According to the CJEU, the Directive's article 6 does not seek to "prescribe uniform solutions" after a term has been declared unfair [see para 39]. However, once it has found a term unfair, the national court invested with the dispute must, "while taking into account all of its national law, take all the measures necessary to protect the consumer from the particularly unfavourable consequences which could result from the annulment of the loan, notably the fact that the seller or supplier could immediately claim the debt from the consumer" [para 41]. 

The above means that, in circumstances such as the ones at stake, nothing precludes a court from instating negotiations between the parties in order to establish a viable method for calculating the interest rate "provided that it sets out the framework for those negotiations" and that the negotiations themselves seek to establish "an effective balance" between the parties' rights an obligations, considering in particular the objective of consumer protection underlying the Unfair Terms Directive [see para 42]. In doing so, however, they should keep in mind that their intervention should not go beyond "what is strictly necessary to restore the contractual balance", which in turn means "to protect the consumer from the particularly unfavourable consequences" that annulment would bring about. A more substantive intervention would undermine the achievement of the paramount objectives pursued by the directive, namely restoring equality between the parties and deterring professionals from using unfair terms [para 44, para 38] 

Combined, the elements in the reasoning seem to suggest not only that the Directive does not preclude the instigation of "regulated" negotiations, but even that courts are required to take action in this way when this is allowed [or not prohibited] under the applicable national rules. While the CJEU's caveat against substantive intervention leaves open questions as to what courts should do in case negotiations stall, the decision seems mainly aimed at moderating the possibly harsh effects of the case-law which came to be epitomised in Dziubak while preventing consumer-unfriendly readings which some MS courts may be a bit too eager to embrace. 

Replacing unfair terms with supplementary rules - not a mission impossible? AG Kokott elaborates on Dziubak in C-81/19 Banca Transilvania

Amid the current crisis it is worth taking a step back in order to catch up on some of the ongoing cases before the Court of Justice. Case C-81/19 Banca Transilvania is one of such noteworthy disputes. On March 19th the Advocate-General Kokott issued the opinion in the case, addressing a number of important points concerning consumer protection against unfair terms in foreign currency loan agreements. The opinion engages with the scope of fairness assessment, focusing on the exclusions of the terms reflecting mandatory statutory provisions and conditional exclusion of core terms. It further elaborates on the legal consequences to be drawn by national courts if a term governing the exchange rate risk is found to be unfair. In the latter regard, the dispute follows up on the widely commented Dziubak ruling, decided by the Court at the end of last year.

Facts of the case

The case was brought by a number of Romanian consumers, who, despite receiving their income in Romanian leu, entered into a credit agreement for a sum denonminated in Swiss francs. As a result of the fall in value of the leu, the amount to be paid increased very significantly. The consumers argued that the bank failed to provide them with adequate information on the exchange rate risk, which they found unreasonably disadvantagous. The bank responded that the contested term reflected the principle of monetary nominalism expressed in the Romanian Civil Code and, therefore, fell outside the scope of the unfairness test in line with Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13.

Opinion of AG

Against this background, the referring court firstly asked whether a contractual term that reflects a general principle established by law (such as the principle of monetary nominalism) is subject to the provisions of Directive 93/13. According to the AG,  the exemption in Article 1(2) extends to the statutory provisions - including both mandatory and default rules - which were adopted "specifically for the type of contract concerned" or which are applicable to the contract according to a legislative reference. This conclusion was justified by a teleological argument, according to which it is only possible for the national legislature to "strike a balance" between the parties inasmuch as the specific arrangement between the parties was indeed envisaged by it (para. 42). If the provision is not intended to create a balance between consumers and sellers or suppliers, the trader should not be able to rely on Article 1(2), which is for the national court to verify. Although the interpretation does not actually lie too far off from the previous case law of the Court of Justice, such as RWE Vertrieb or Aqua Med, it could potentially further reduce the improtance of Article 1(2) exemption.

Assuming the referring court should go forward with a substantive fairness assessment, a further question was raised as regards the analysis of core terms under Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13. In this regard the AG recalled, following the Andriciuc case, that a term under which a loan denominated in a foreign currency is to be repaid in that currency may concern the 'main subject matter of the contract' within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13. Terms of this kind escape fairness assessment under UCTD (provided Member States have not increased the level of consumer protection, see Ahorros) in so far they are in plain intelligible language. According to the AG, the relevant criteria have already been explained by the Court. The trader is thus required to comprehensively inform the consumer about the potential risks of variations in the exchange rate and the fact that they must be borne entirely by the borrower (para. 59).

Finally and perhaps most importantly, the referring court sought to find out whether freezing the exchange rate at the rate applicable on the date of signature of the agreement offers a solution which ensures the full effectiveness of the consumer’s rights under UCTD. According to that court, the agreement could not continue to exist without the contested term, yet its annulment would not be favourable to the consumer either, as it would put the latter at the risk of having to repay the entire loan at once. To recall, full annulment was an outcome welcomed by the consumers in the Dziubak case. This, however, has not been case in Banca Transilvania. According to AG Kokott, previous case law of the Court of Justice significantly limits the scope of actions that the national court can take in situations of this kind: among others, the court may not assume that the consumer is bound by the unfair term and may not modify the contract by revising the content of the unfair term. However, in view of the AG, a national court cannot be prohibited from plugging a gap in a contract left by the removal of the unfair term with a supplementary rule that restores the balance between the reciprocal rights and obligations of the parties, simply because one of the parties is a consumer (para. 73). Such a conclusion is not to be mistaken with a judicial interpretation of the term and with reduction of its content to a permissible extent, as this would indeed reduce the directive's dissuasive effect. However, where disuassive effect is also not achieved by the anullment, national courts should be able to substitute the unfair term with a supplementary rule that replaces the formal balance between the rights and obligations of the parties with an effective balance which re-establishes equality between them (paras. 79, 87). While the possibility of, exceptionally, replacing an unfair contract term with a supplementary provision of national law if the nullity of the contract would have particularly negative consequences for the consumer has already been recognized in prior case law (Kásler, Abanca), the interpretation of the concept of 'supplementary provisions of national law' has remained underdeveloped (see Guidance Notice to the UCTD, p. 42). Reference of the AG to the rules that "replace the formal balance between the rights and obligations of the parties with an effective balance which re-establishes equality between them" could be of help in this regard. The AG herself, however, did not give her opinion whether freezing the exchange rate at the rate applicable on the date of signature could provide such a solution. The mission given to national courts, therefore, remains quite challenging.

Concluding thought

Overall, the opinion brings the discussion on the legal consequences to be drawn by national courts if a contract term is found to be unfair back on its previous track, following the more fact-specific Dziubak judgment delivered last year. It does not go against the prior case law of the Court, since one of the proposed conditions for allowing the court to replace the unfair term with a supplementary rule is the finding that annulement would have particularly unfavourable consequences for the consumer. With this condition in mind, it does not seem unlikely the interpretation laid down in the opinion will eventually be followed by the Court.

On a more general note, the commented case reminds us of the crucial role of the UCTD as a vehicle of consumer protection following the financial crisis of 2008. While the potential economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would likely have a different nature, it is worth remembering the lessons learnt from previous times of hardship. In her opinion, AG Kokott seeks to provide for a high level of consumer protection while highlighting the importance of an "effective balance" between the rights and obligations of both parties, in line with their reasonable expectations. Lifting the economy following current crisis will be a challenging endevour and will likely require a similar balance to be struck. Yet the consumers' weaker position should not be forgotten along the way.

Can we make variable interest rates transparent? - CJEU in Gómez del Moral Guasch (C-125/18)

On 3 March 2020 (yes, we are a bit behind in our commenting on the most recent developments, sorry about that! We are making our way through the news of the past few weeks) the CJEU issued a judgment in the case Gómez del Moral Guasch (C-125/18). We have previously commented on the AG Szpunar's opinion in this Spanish case (Unfairness assessment of variable interest rates...), which brought up two main issues: 1) scope of unfairness testing for terms reflecting mandatory provisions; 2) transparency assessment. Just as a reminder the consumer's mortgage loan contract came with a variable interest rate and the claim raised a possible unfairness of a term referring to an index on the basis of which the rate would be calculated.

Ad 1)

The CJEU agreed with AG Szpunar that unless the index has been prescribed by the national legislation to mandatorily apply to consumer mortgage loan contracts irrespective of the parties' choice or in absence of their choice, a term referring to it falls within the scope of application of the UCTD (paras. 32-34). This means this term could be tested for unfairness (para. 36), as Bankia had the chance to define the interest rate in any way, as long as it was 'clear, specific and comprehensible to the borrower and was consistent with the law' (para. 35).

Ad 2)

The CJEU again stresses the need for both formal and material transparency assessment under the UCTD, observance of which should allow an average consumer to understand the specific method used for calculating the variable interest rate and evaluate potentially significant economic consequences of that term on consumer's financial obligations (para. 51). In reference to the material transparency assessment the CJEU instructs national courts to check whether the essential information relating to the calculation of the variable interest rate was easily accessible to anyone intending to take a mortgage loan, e.g. because the method used for calculating that rate has been published (para. 53). National court should further inquire whether consumers were given the data on past fluctuations of the index (para. 54).
The CJEU emphasises the importance of the principle of transparency in an earlier part of the judgment (paras. 44-46). The emphasis is placed on the weak position of consumers in a transaction, the protection of which requires traders to provide clear and intelligible information to consumers in standard contract terms, regardless of whether these terms are core contractual terms.

In the last part of the judgment (paras. 63-66) the CJEU highlights the fact that if a term, indicating an index on the basis of which the variable interest rate is calculated, is unfair and is nullified, when this would have 'particularly unfavourable' consequences for consumers, the national court may choose to replace this term with a reference to a statutory index.

Comment
This judgment is another in a series of judgments elaborating for national courts mainly how to evaluate the compliance with the principle of transparency. The continued references to the possibility of average consumers to understand complex financial contracts, as long as the data provided to them is complete enough, remain somewhat jarring in light of the behavioural evidence showing the widespread lack of financial illiteracy. It seems past time for the legislators and regulators to intervene and set more guidelines on transparent disclosures/further need for consumer advice services in this area.

CJEU in Dziubak (C-260/18) - no replacement of unfair terms with "usages"

This morning, the CJEU published a much-awaited decision (only available in French and Polish ATM) on unfair terms in foreign currency-indexed loans. In Dziubak, a Polish couple has sued Raffeisen bank over the terms setting the indexation mechanism in the credit contract that the consumers had concluded with the bank. Said terms applied a known mechanism - indexing outstanding amounts in line with the PLN-CHF buying rate and quantifying instalments (due in Zloty) via the selling rate. The particularity in this case was that the bank used its own exchange rate tables, hence being able to directly determine the applicable rates. 

The referring Polish court had no doubts that the terms were, as the Dziubaks had claimed, unfair. However, the court was in doubt as to what the consequences of such finding should be. 

The concerned consumers maintained that the contract should be invalidated. In the alternative, they demanded the court to remove the indexing mechanism and leave the interest determination terms in place - meaning that the contract would become one in national currency, but with an interest rate indexing which is not the one typical for contract in Zlotys.

According to the referring court, such a solution would transform the nature of the contract and hence be in contrast with basic principles of the Polish legal order, such as freedom of contract. As the parties had concluded a foreign currency-indexed credit contract, replacing it with a regular variable interest mechanism would denature the original agreement. 

Raffeisen, on the other hand, suggested that the gap resulting from the removal of the unfair terms could be filled by resorting to general principles of fairness and customs. Interestingly, according to the referring court, one possible outcome of such exercise would be... to reintroduce the unfair terms to the affected contracts, as a reflection of what is "customary" in the relevant market.

As we know, previous CJEU case-law has set very strict limits to the possibility of replacing an unfair term by means of national rules - in particular, the Kásler decision allowed making use of national supplementary or default rules when the contract would otherwise be invalid and such invalidity would be contrary to the consumer's interest. But one crucial question in Dziubak is precisely this - who decides what is (not) in the consumer's interests? Can a court decide that maintaining an unfair term in place is better for the consumer than invalidating the whole contract, even as the consumer maintains otherwise?

Against this background, the CJEU (by and large in line with AG Pitruzzella's opinion, that we discussed earlier) reached a number of conclusions:

1) If national legislation requires a contract to be considered invalid when the removal of an unfair term would change its nature given the resulting difference in its main object - such as could be the case if a foreign-currency indexed rate is turned into a regular variable interest mortgage - such legislation is compatible with the Directive;

2) In this case, the Kasler standard means that invalidation of the contract must be the outcome where the consumer so prefers: given that the Court's case-law grants the consumer final word on whether an unfair term must be considered as binding on them, a fortiori they must be able to decide whether rescuing the contract is or not in their own interest. In this respect, the "interest of the consumer" can only be assessed with reference to the moment when the controversy takes place;  

3) General principles or rules are not tantamount to supplementary or default rules which apply when the parties have not made specific provisions. As these rules do not equally express the legislator's view as to what would make a reasonable balancing of interests in a specific constellation, the application of general principles by a national court cannot be considered to enjoy the same "presumption of fairness" as default rules and hence cannot be used to replace unfair terms; they can thus not be used to supplement the contract in order to prevent its invalidity. 

Back in Poland, the Dziubaks' legal team seems to have taken this judgement as a victory:

Source: twitter

This appears slightly puzzling from a legal point of view: in fact, by indicating that no replacement by means of general principles can take place, the Court seems to have indicated that either the unfair terms are maintained or the contract (and other similar contracts) must be invalidated - would this not be getting many consumers "stuck" with unfair terms if they do not have the money to return all the outstanding capital immediately?

The concrete circumstances may however be of importance - since in 2015 the Swiss franc underwent a major appreciation against (the Euro and, as a consequence, other European currencies such as) the Zloty, which had already depreciated significantly in 2008-2009, many consumers have paid very high instalments which were supposed to mainly cover interests. If the original contracts are invalid, however, it could be possible to claim that only the capital sum is due - and then a settlement of accounts may counterintuitively play in favour of quite a few consumers. Furthermore, it could be that the decision will trigger a wave of settlements or renegotiation, which again may turn out as a gain for Polish lenders.

As far as other consumers are concerned, however, the decision looks like a mixed bag - first, the deference to national rules of contract law may mean quite diverging levels of protection across Member States; second, the Court's resolve to prevent all sort of gap filling interventions when no supplementary rules are readily at hand may actually have a chilling effect on consumers who may not want to start proceedings if the result is that they have to choose between an invalid contract and the original unfair term. On the bright side, the prospective of courts starting to replace unfair terms with equally unfair customs seems to have been washed away. Congratulations to Ms Dziubak and her lawyer's daytime drinking improv!

Unfairness assessment of variable interest rates - AG Szpunar in Gómez del Moral Guasch (C-125/18)

Facts of the case

In 2001 M. Gómez del Moral Guasch concluded a mortgage loan contract, with a variable interest rate, with a Spanish bank in order to purchase a residential apartment. In 2017 the consumer contested the fairness of a term in that contract that determines the mechanism of calculating the variable interest rate - based on the Spanish IRPH index. The consumer claimed that it is unfair that the interest rate is not indexed pursuant to EURIBOR index, which would have been more beneficial to him and is more commonly applied to Spanish mortgage contracts (in ca 90% of all contracts - para. 30). 

The IRPH index used in this loan contract was one of six IRPH indexes that have been adopted by the Spanish government. In 2011 it has been replaced - automatically - by a new IRPH index, also determined by the Spanish government. In a judgment of 14 December 2017 the Spanish Supreme Court declared, in a similar to this case, that if the IRH index is adopted as such in loan contracts it should not be subject to the unfairness or the transparency test from the UCTD, as it reflects a mandatory statutory provision (para. 53). The Supreme Court further decided that a contractual term based on IRPH index, which was drafted similarly to the one used in the case referred to the CJEU, was transparent, both formally and materially. Formally it was transparent as it was placed in the contract in a grammatically clear way, it was comprehensible and allowed consumers to understand and accept the fact that the variable interest rate will be calculated on the basis of an index controlled by the Spanish central bank. Materially it was transparent as it allowed average consumers to calculate the costs of concluding the agreement and it could not be required from banks to propose differently indexed loan agreements and explain how various indexes have been set up (para. 54).

Opinion

Scope of application of UCTD to terms that reflect national mandatory statutory provisions

First, AG Szpunar reasonably differentiates between evaluating the unfairness of an index rate that has been set out in national statutory provisions and a contractual term that foresees the use of such an index rate in calculating the variable interest rate of a loan contract (para. 59). Then he proceeds to consider whether the exception of Art. 1(2) UCTD should be applicable in this case, i.e. whether the contractual term reflects both a mandatory and a statutory provision of national law. His analysis leads to the conclusion that the mandatory character of the provision regulating the IRPH index is missing, which leaves it possible to subject a term reflecting it to the unfairness test of the UCTD. This conclusion is based on the fact that at the moment of the conclusion of the contract Spanish banks could choose whether to apply the IRPH index or another index that would fulfill the same conditions (e.g. EURIBOR index) (para. 78, 83). Therefore, as the exception from the scope of application of the UCTD should be strictly interpreted and applied only to situations where parties' freedom of choice is taken away, it cannot be said that the use of this index had a mandatory character (para. 82). 

Side note: It is irrelevant that subsequently, in 2011 the IRPH index used in the contract has been automatically substituted by a different IRPH index (here the freedom of choice of parties was eliminated, therefore, we could determine its mandatory character), as the unfairness should be assessed considering the facts of the case at the moment of the conclusion of the contract (para. 64).

Transparency

- of core terms

Whilst implementing the UCTD the Spanish legislator chose not to apply the exception for the application of the Directive to core terms of a contract (Art. 4 UCTD). This leads to an interesting conundrum in this case. Namely, whether Spanish courts could still refuse to assess the unfairness of a transparent core contract term, which is what Art. 4(2) UCTD stipulates, despite this provision not having been implemented in the Spanish legal order.

AG Szpunar rightly observes along the lines that: you cannot have the cake and eat it too. Principles of legal certainty and transparency require full transposition of provisions of directives that will then be applied in national legal systems (para. 93). In the previous CJEU judgment (Caja de Ahorres), it was decided that the Spanish legislator could have made a legislative choice, by not implementing Art. 4 UCTD, to submit also transparent core terms to the unfairness control, as this provides more consumer protection and the UCTD is a minimum harmonisation directive (para. 89). If, however, the Spanish legislator made a transposition mistake and actually intended to subject transparent core terms to the unfairness control, then, following the CJEU's judgment, we would have expected a change of the Spanish legislation. This has not occurred. Instead, the Spanish Supreme Court took upon themselves to clarify Spanish law as indeed not submitting transparent terms to the unfairness control. Such a judicial and not legislative clarification could be, however, perceived as in breach of the above-mentioned principles of legal certainty and transparency of EU law (para. 96). Therefore, Spanish courts may subject transparent core terms to the unfairness control (para. 100).

- what does it entail?

AG Szpunar reminds the previous CJEU case law referring to the principle of transparency as being fulfilled when an average consumer not only receives information that is grammatically correct but also that allows them to determine economic consequences of concluding a particular contract (paras. 106-108). In light of a given contractual term, he considers the term to definitely be grammatically clear and comprehensible in a way that it informs consumers as to what index will be applied to their variable interest rate and how the rounding-up of the interest will occur (para. 112). Does the term, however, sufficiently inform consumers about the economic consequences of the concluded loan agreement? AG Szpunar is inclined to believe that it may have done so, provided that the method of calculating the interest rate and its elements was clearly related to the applicable index rate, which has not only been fully defined, with a reference to appropriate legal rules establishing it, but also mentioned changes in the past values of that index (para. 125).

Side note 1: Here, AG Szpunar differentiates between the previous case law on transparency, which addressed transparency of loan contracts concluded in foreign currencies, and the given case on a loan with a variable interest rate. When a loan is concluded in a foreign currency, the mechanism of calculating the exchange rate may be very complex and there are potentially serious economic consequences following from non-understanding that mechanism and the fact that there is a future, uncertain risk related to its application. These potentially serious economic consequences shape the transparency requirements (paras. 115-118). In the given case, however, such a future, uncertain risk is not present, as the economic consequences of concluding a loan contract with a variable interest rate are more foreseeable (para. 119). This leads AG Szpunar to not see as necessary that bank warns consumers about the possibility of future changes to an index rate. However, by obliging banks to provide consumers with an indication of past changes to the index values, a possibility of future fluctuation should become clear, as well. Consequently, the difference in transparency requirements seems subtle.

Side note 2: AG Szpunar did not consider it necessary that the banks provide consumers with a separate information on the mathematical formula that allows to clearly follow the method of calculation of the index rate, as this information was publicly available (paras. 122-123). If, however, the information would have been difficult to access, we could possibly expect the information obligations of the banks being extended.

Intransparency of transparency case law? CJEU in C-38/17 GT v HS

Last Wednesday the Court of Justice delivered a judgment in case C-38/17 GT v HS. On the face of it, the case seems like just another dispute concerning a credit agreement with potentially intransparent terms, specifically terms defining the applicable exchange rate for the loan denominated in foreign currency. On a closer look, a more peculiar picture emerges: the questions asked by the referring court seem to miss the harmonized EU rules, the Commission argues for inadmissibility, Advocate-General decides not to present a written opinion, and at the end of that messy process the Court issues a judgment which might raise at least several eyebrows (for a context see one of the earlier posts published on this blog Forward to the past...).

Facts of the case

The case involved a consumer who concluded a currency-denominated loan agreement and the precise amount of the loan in foreign currency was established only after the agreement had been concluded. Specifically, at the time of contract conclusion the amount of the loan was established on the basis of the sum required in Hungarian forints, applying the exchange rate in force at the time the funds were released. The relevant rate was communicated to the consumer approximately 1.5 month later. There is nothing in the case as to whether the consumer knew in advance about the way in which the exchange rate was to be calculated. In these roughly sketched circumstances, the referring court was wondering whether an array of EU rules and principles, including Articles 4(2) and 5 Directive 93/13 on unfair terms, can be read as obliging the trader to inform the consumer, in clear and intelligible language, before entering into an agreement, about core contractual terms, as a condition of validity of the agreement. The Court of Justice read the reference made by the national court as inquiring whether Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 6(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude the legislation of a Member State, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of that Member State, under which a loan agreement is not invalid where it is denominated in foreign currency and does not indicate the exchange rate applicable to the loan sum for the purpose of determining the definitive amount of the loan, but at the same time stipulates, in one of its terms, that that rate will be set by the lender in a separate document after the agreement has been concluded. In the process of reformulating the question the Court dropped a reference to Article 5 UCTD, which concerns the transparency of terms formulated in writing and establishes a rule that, in the case of doubts, interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.

Judgment of the Court

In its judgment the Court follows a sequence of steps: since we are talking about a core term, the first question is whether the relevant term is phrased in plain intelligible language in line with Article 4(2) UCTD. If it is, our job is done, no consequences can be drawn against such a term on the basis of the analysed directive. If it is not, we move to the second step and carry out a substantive assessment on the basis Article 3(1). If unfairness is established, the sanction of invalidity, as a matter of principle, only applies to the term in question. Only if the agreement cannot function without the relevant term it can be deemed invalid in its entirety.

Let us first focus on the assessment whether a term is phrased in "plain intelligible language". The Court first recalls some of it earlier case law highlighting that the transparency requirement cannot be reduced merely to the terms being "formally and grammatically intelligible" (see eg our earlier post on the Court's judgment in Andriciuc). Rather, due to the consumer's weaker position vis-à-vis the trader, the requirement must be understood in a broad sense. In particular, according to the Court, "the contract should indicate transparently and specifically how the mechanism to which the relevant term relates is to function and, where appropriate, the relationship between that mechanism and that provided for by other contractual terms", so that that consumer "is in a position to evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him of entering into the contract".

Applied to the case at hand the requirement implies that "the mechanism for calculating the amount lent, expressed in foreign currency, and the exchange rate applicable must be indicated transparently, so that a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer may evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him of entering into the agreement, including, in particular, the total cost of the loan" (para. 34). So far so good. Note, however, that the question is to be examined "in the light of all relevant facts" including promotional material and information provided to consumers during negotiations (para. 35). Surely, the contextual background seems important and indeed follows from the earlier case law, but what does it mean exactly in the case like the one at hand? Can information provided during negotiations make an otherwise intransparent term transparent? If so, how does this relate to Article 5 of the UCTD? The Court does not say. 

What may worry consumer advocates even more is the point in time, at which an appropriate level of transparency should be achieved. In particular, as noted by the Court in para. 36: the seller or supplier cannot be expected to have specified all the relevant details at the time the agreement was concluded. Again, it is not clear which "relevant details" can be skipped at the time of entering into a contract. Understandably, the exact exchange rate will often not be known in advance. But what about the way in which the exchange rate is to be calculated? 

Because the assessment is left to the national court, the Court then moves to the second stage, that is whether the relevant term can be considered unfair. In this respect, the focus of the Court remains on the wording of Article 3(1): whether, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a term causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer concerned. Also here the Court does not offer much of a clarification, besides noting that the assessment should consider "the nature of the goods or services" as well as, again, "the circumstances attending the conclusion of the agreement ... which could have been known to the seller or supplier at that time the agreement was concluded and ... could affect the future performance of the agreement (paras. 39 and 40). 

Concluding thought

While the reference to the circumstances attending the conclusion of the agreement may, at the end of the day, work in consumer's advantage ("a contractual term which manifests itself only during the performance of the agreement term may give rise to an imbalance between the parties", para. 40), the judgment leaves more questions open than it answers. It is not clear, in particular, whether the Court retracts on its earlier judgment in VKI, where it found that "the unfairness of ... a term may result from a formulation that does not comply with the requirement of being drafted in plain and intelligible language set out in Article 5 of Directive 93/13" (para. 68). Does the resulting imbalance already relate to the consumer's uncertainty about the scope of his obligations? Or should it rather be established by looking at the relevant rights and duties and comparing them on the merits? 

Finally, we should not forget that all the rules we are talking about in here are minimum harmonisation rules. To recall, in Ahorros the Court made it clear that Member States may adopt national legislation which authorises a judicial review as to the unfairness of contractual terms which relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other hand, even in the case where those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language. The same is true for additional rules concerning bringing terms to consumers' attention (eg German rules on Einbeziehungskontrolle) or the consequences of intransparency (eg intransparency as a self-standing ground for invalidity). Of course, the judgment does not say otherwise - and let us not be fooled that it does. 

Consumer protection and rule of law - AG Wahl's opinion in Dunai (C-118/17)

Much like the Spanish Aziz saga, the CJEU's 2014 decision in Kásler keeps generating new litigation - in Hungary and in Luxembourg alike. 

In Kásler, the Court decided on the applicability of unfair terms control to certain terms in foreign currency denominated loans. These terms had the effect of maximising the lender's profit by exploiting the difference between currency selling and buying rates. The ECJ held that such terms are not exempted from control, as they do not establish the main content of the contract - represented by the notion of foreign currency-denominated loan -  but rather are ancillary to that determination. While it is a core component of these loans that, in return for lower interest rates, consumers accept to take up the risk of currency fluctuation, the bifurcation between selling and buying rates is a further sophistication which alters the original model (in favour of the lender). 

As a consequence of Kásler, the Hungarian Supreme Court (Kuria) decided that those terms were unfair. This triggered a further reaction: the Hungarian legislator issued new rules with the aim of providing "replacement" terms. Under these rules, in foreign currency denomination loans the exchange rate is set at the level determined by the Hungarian Central Bank. 

This mechanism preserves the validity of the foreign currency denomination loans by making sure that there is always a way of determining the value of the debt. The laws in question also established some limitations on the possibility for consumers to claim the relevant remedies, which were the object of a different preliminary reference (OTP Bank and OTP Factoring).

In Dunai, the Court will have to decide whether the rules are compatible with the Directive. In particular, the referring court wonders how the replacement with the Central Bank exchange rate, which leaves the risk of currency fluctuation with the consumers, fares with the test set out in Kásler. A part of that judgment, indeed, concerned the replacement of terms with default rules when the contract could otherwise not continue into existence after unfair terms control. This is how the reasoning (para 83-84) went:

 [...] if, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it was not permissible to replace an unfair term with a supplementary provision, requiring the court to annul the contract in its entirety, the consumer might be exposed to particularly unfavourable consequences, so that the dissuasive effect resulting from the annulment of the contract could well be jeopardised.

   In general, the consequence of an annulment is that the outstanding balance of the loan becomes due forthwith, which is likely to be in excess of the consumer’s financial capacities and, as a result, tends to penalise the consumer rather than the lender who, as a consequence, might not be dissuaded from inserting such terms in its contracts.

This reasoning, and in particularly the second part thereof, raised the possibility that the consumer's interest may play a role in assessing whether replacement & preservation would have to be preferred to sheer invalidation. 

The referring court thus asked, in essence, whether a law that forces them to recognise that the unfair term had been replaced by mandatory legislation determining the applicable interest rate, making it impossible for them to instead invalidate the contract for being incapable of continuing into existence, was compatible with the Directive. It also asked two related questions which we will discuss in turn.

Last Thursday, AG Wahl published his opinion in this case (here the French version, the English text is not yet available).

On the first question, the AG gives a very puzzling reply. After explaining that the goal of the Directive's article 6 is to establish an effective balance between the parties and not to invalidate all contracts containing unfair terms (para 75), the AG considers that the possibility of maintaining the contract must be assessed objectively, without letting the consideration of the party's interest play a determinant role (76-77). 

In this context, the judge's ability to replace the unfair terms must be interpreted as only applying in exceptional circumstances.   

From the above, the AG infers that a provision of national law which, in cases of partial invalidity arising from a declaration of unfairness, aims to preserve the contract's validity without the unfair term is consistent with the directive. This because the competent judge cannot remedy the term's unfairness just because invalidating the contract would be more advantageous to the consumer. 

If the AG assumes that in some way his reasoning has demonstrated that invalidating the contract would be the same as "remedying" an unfair term, this blogger has to admit to not being able to see how.

The rest of the opinion is (yes, it's possible!) even more technical to the extent that the AG delves into the distinction between the core and ancillary elements in the contract. The argument goes as follows: the original unfair terms were non-core terms, but the term that replaces them - fixing the exchange rate - is a core term. Therefore, whereas the referring court sees the Hungarian legislation as limiting their possibility to adjudicate on unfair terms, it is the Directive itself that imposes that limitation by excluding core terms from control. 

This reasoning allows the AG to answer that, contrary to the suspicions raised by the referring court in its second question, the Hungarian legislation does not hamper the effectiveness of Directive 93/13, which itself does not aim to reach into the domain of core terms. 

The third and last question by the referring court concerned the role of certain guidelines issued by the Hungarian Supreme Court - which the referring judge, again, perceived to be unduly limiting their ability to secure consumer protection. Here the AG again takes a somewhat surprising route: over four short paragraphs (109-112), the AG suggests that since national courts are always in a position to disapply national legislation incompatible with union law and/or raise a preliminary ruling request, there is no risk that the Kuria guidelines will prevent the application, by the national courts, of relevant EU law provisions. 

The institutional background of this case deserves separate mention. While asking about Directive 93/13, the referring court relates to a much broader panorama: take in particular the second part of the third question, whereby the court asks: is it in conformity with the EU's competence to secure a high level of consumer protection as well as fundamental EU law principles of effective judicial protection and fair trial for all questions of civil law that the the "harmonisation council" of a MS highest jurisdiction can guide adjudication through [guidelines], where the appointment of judges to this council does not happen in a transparent manner, according to pre-established rules, when the procedure before said council is not public, and it is not possible to know afterwards the procedure followed, the expertise and publications used and the vote of the different council manners?

The AG is very conscious that the struggle highlighted by this question goes far beyond the - already quite relevant - question of the fate of foreign currency denominated loans affected by unfair terms. His response is to carefully try to unload all questions of this background - an exercise that works better at certain turns than at others. 

Finding out whether the Court will take the very same path or take some deviations into rule of law discussions is one more reason to await the decision with great interest.