Limitation periods and restitution after loan invalidity - three new CJEU Swiss-Franc mortgage judgments

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).

Polish bankruptcy law fails consumers with unfair loan terms - CJEU in Wiszkier (C-582/23)

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash

In July 2025, the CJEU issued a judgment in Wiszkier (C-582/23), concerning a Polish case involving a consumer mortgage loan indexed to Swiss francs. In this instance, the consumer had to declare bankruptcy after being unable to meet, among other obligations, their mortgage payments. Although the bankruptcy court found that the contract potentially contained unfair terms, raising the possibility of the contract being null and void, Polish law prohibits this court from examining this issue further. Under Polish law, even if the unfairness of contract terms had not been previously raised by the consumer, the bankruptcy court is only competent to approve or reject a repayment plan based on a list of claims drawn up by the trustee (paras 26-27). At most, the court may stay the proceedings and refer the unfairness' matter to another competent, supervisory authority (paras 29 and 45). 

Unfairness assessment by the bankruptcy court 

Decision: Incompatibility with EU law. Unsurprisingly, the CJEU found Polish law incompatible with EU law. Specifically, it held that the Unfair Contract Terms Directive precludes national provisions that prevent a bankruptcy court from examining the unfairness of contract terms in a loan agreement underlying a claim included in the list of claims, or from amending that list, where no such assessment has been conducted by the authority preparing the list (para 58).

Although EU law leaves enforcement of consumer protection rules against unfair contract terms to the Member States, such national rules must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (para 40). The CJEU found that the principle of effectiveness was violated in this case. While Polish law allows a bankruptcy court to stay proceedings so that a supervisory court may assess the potential unfairness of contract terms, this process introduces delay and exposes consumers to further financial hardship. During the stay, the bankrupt's salary continues to be withheld by the bankruptcy estate, which may discourage consumers from raising objections based on unfair terms (para 46). Notably, monthly repayments set in bankruptcy proceedings are often lower than the salary amounts withheld during the proceedings (para 47), exacerbating the financial strain. Moreover, in this case, although the consumer had acknowledged all the claims listed by the trustee, this was done without legal representation and likely without understanding that an unfairness objection could be raised (para 52). The consumer only raised this issue. through legal counsel, once the case reached the bankruptcy court (para 53). The CJEU clarified that it is irrelevant whether the list of claims has become res judicata (para 55).

Interim measures by the bankruptcy court

Decision: The CJEU further ruled that national law must enable bankruptcy courts to grant interim measures to protect consumers while the fairness of a claim included in the list is under judicial review.

The Court reiterated that ensuring effective consumer protection against unfair terms may require granting interim measures, for example, adjusting monthly instalments during prolonged proceedings to prevent consumers from being forced to pay more than the amount actually due if the unfair terms were ultimately invalidated (paras 67-68). As noted by the referring court, the fear of higher interim payments to the bankruptcy estate may deter consumers from raising unfairness objections altogether (para 69). The court responsible for granting interim measures must consider: "whether there is sufficient evidence that the contractual terms concerned are unfair, whether there is a real possibility that the bankruptcy estate is already sufficiently funded to satisfy the creditors, with the exception, as the case may be, of the claim concerned, as well as the bankrupt's financial situation and the risk of that person having to endure a prolongation of the bankruptcy proceedings which could result in an unwarranted deterioration in his or her financial situation pending the conclusion of those proceedings." (para 71)

A milestone for Polish consumers claiming unfairness of Swiss francs mortgage loans - CJEU in Lubreczlik (C-396/24)

Yesterday, the CJEU issued a new judgment in the Swiss franc mortgage loans and their unfair contract terms saga, following a referral from a Polish court, in the case known as Lubreczlik (C-396/24). The referral was based on two cases, in which consumers concluded mortgage loans indexed to the Swiss franc rate. In both cases consumers claimed repayment of sums they had paid to the bank on the basis of their mortgage contracts being void due to unfair contract terms they contained. The bank counterclaimed seeking that consumers paid the full loan amount back to the bank. 

Previously, the Polish Supreme Court issued a judgment with a so-called 'two claims' theory (see declaration III CZP 11/20 from 16 February 2021 - in Polish here). This theory acknowledged that after a loan agreement is declared invalid, both parties (consumer and lender) have a right, "distinct and independent of each other, to repayment of monetary payments made in performance of that agreement. Each of the parties could therefore claim full repayment of the sums paid, whether or not it is still a debtor of the other party and regardless of the amount of its own debt" (para 26).

Imagine now situations (very common in practice), in which consumers have already paid the whole amount of their loan to the bank, or even paid to the bank sums exceeding the total loan value, on the basis of high interest rates. While waiting for their claims of unfairness to be adjudicated by Polish courts or the judgments to become final and the bank to return their money to them, they receive a lawsuit from the bank for the repayment of the full amount of the loan. Often, such a (de facto, repeated) repayment would either be financially impossible or significantly detrimental to consumers (even if made in the expectation of the eventual repayment by the bank of the same or higher sum of money) (para 27). Further procedural rules make it also feasible that any repayment by a consumer of the money to the bank will be immediately enforceable, while the bank's obligation to repay the consumer may take a long time to reach that stage (para 32). Consumers could theoretically argue for a set-off of reciprocal claims, but Polish procedural rules make such a declaration complex and not necessarily favouring consumer interests (para 28).

Repayment of the loan amount by a consumer

The CJEU leaves no doubt that Polish (case) law may not allow banks to claim repayment of the full loan amount, regardless of the value of repayments already made by consumers in performance of the loan agreement and "irrespective of the amount remaining due" (para 44). The CJEU recalls the need for the Member States to ensure that the national protection against unfair contract terms is a deterrent for sellers and suppliers against embedding such terms in their contracts (para 38). Further, national law needs to protect consumers against the detriment of having their contract's annulled as a result of them containing unfair contract terms (para 39). These obligations may result in Polish courts being required to "change established case-law", if following such national case law would lead to undermining EU consumer protection's objectives (para 43).

Polish courts should then disregard the Polish Supreme Court's theory of "two claims" in assessing the banks' claims for repayment of the full amount of loan by consumers, if consumers already had paid back at least part of the mortgage loan to the bank. This should mean in practice that banks claims filed against consumers should be scaled down in consideration of the actual repayments that consumers have already made. Strategic litigation by banks against consumers for the repayment of full loan amounts becomes much more risky as a result of this judgment.

Immediate enforceability of consumer repayments

The CJEU also addressed the matter of Polish courts being required to award of their own motion immediate enforceability to repayment claims made by banks against consumers, if consumers accepted such claims (and they may have good reasons to accept them - see para 51 of the judgment for more information). The Court considers also this practice contrary to EU consumer protection objectives, as long as Polish courts are not allowed to consider in their decision-making detriment to the consumer that such an immediate enforceability order would have (para 58). 

This part of the CJEU's judgment protects consumers against the immediate need to repay the money to the bank, which could have dissuaded them from progressing with their unfairness claims.

Overall, this judgment raises financial risks for these banks that were not keen so far to settle consumer cases and which have used various intimidation tactics to dissuade consumers from pursuing their claims. It may also lead to banks proposing more beneficial settlements to consumers and encourage consumers to negotiate settlement terms.

Sanctions for Not Providing Essential Information in Credit Contracts - CJEU in Lexitor II (Case C-472/23)

Foto von Towfiqu barbhuiya auf Unsplash

The case concerned a debt collection agency (Lexitor), acting as an assignee of the rights of a consumer who had concluded a consumer credit agreement with a bank for an amount of approx. 9.000 EUR. In addition, the consumer was required to pay capital interest (approx. 4.500 EUR) and a commission fee (approx. EUR 1.100), whereas the Annual Percentage Rate of Charge (APRC) was specified at 11.18%. Lexitor argued that, since the APRC was partly calculated on the basis of unfair contract terms, the bank had failed to provide the correct APRC in the agreement. Consequently, Lexitor sought to recover the total sum of interest and costs as a sanction prescribed under national law. 

The first question was whether the creditor had failed to fulfil its obligation to provide the APRC in the credit agreement where the APRC was overstated due to certain contract terms being declared unfair. The Court emphasised that, although the actual APRC would indeed be overstated if calculated with reference to non-binding unfair contract terms, Article 19(3) of the Consumer Contract Directive (CCD; Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers) requires that the APRC be calculated based on the assumption that the credit agreement is to remain valid for the period agreed and that the creditor and the consumer will fulfil their obligations under the terms and by the dates specified in the credit agreement (para 34). Consequently, where the APRC is determined in accordance with the mathematical formula set out in Annex I to the directive - incorporating the total cost of credit to the consumer, including costs payable under the contract’s terms - the creditor does not infringe its obligation to provide the APRC in the credit agreement. This remains the case even if some of the terms on which the APRC was calculated are subsequently declared unfair and therefore not binding on the consumer (para 35).

The Court also addressed the question of whether listing various circumstances under which charges connected with the performance of the credit agreement may increase, without enabling the consumer to determine whether those circumstances have arisen, constitutes a breach of the creditor’s information obligation under the CCD. The Court referred to its established case law, holding that the terms of the credit agreement must be drafted transparently so that an average consumer can foresee, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the changes that may be made to such charges (paras 41–44). Applying this principle to the contract terms in question, the Court concluded that where a credit agreement enumerates specific circumstances justifying an increase in charges without enabling the average consumer to ascertain whether those circumstances have materialised and their effect on the charges, this constitutes an infringement of the creditor’s obligation to provide information (paras 45–47).

Finally, the Court considered whether Article 23 CCD precludes national legislation that, in cases of infringement of the creditor’s obligation to provide information under Article 10(2) CCD, imposes a uniform penalty depriving the creditor of its right to interest and charges, irrespective of the seriousness of the infringement or its effect on the consumer’s decision. The primary concern was whether such a sanction would be proportional (para 51). Drawing upon its previous case law, the Court reaffirmed that Article 10(2) CCD sets out essential information that consumers must receive to assess the extent of their liability. A breach of this obligation may be sanctioned under national law by the forfeiture of the creditor’s entitlement to interest and charges (paras 53–54). The Court then turned to the specific circumstances of the case. Since the obligation to provide the APRC had not been infringed (first question), it focused instead on the conditions under which costs related to the performance of the agreement (such as commission fees) could be changed, considering this equally vital information under the CCD due to its impact on consumers’ financial obligations (para 55). The Court emphasised that the principle of proportionality does not preclude a Member State from imposing a uniform penalty depriving the creditor of its right to interest and charges for breaches of information obligations under Article 10(2) CCD, including those relating to the calculation of charges connected with contract performance, even where the gravity of the infringement may vary (para 57).

A Short Comment

The Court’s answers to the second and third questions are not surprising. It confirmed that the average consumer standard has been employed to assess the transparency of contract clauses under the CCD framework, as seen previously in BMW Bank, and has been extensively applied in consumer credit case law since Kásler. The response to the third question reaffirms that the information contained in a credit agreement (Article 10(2) CCD) is essential for the consumer to make an informed decision; consequently, failure to comply with this obligation may trigger sanctions under national law. The Court appears to have linked the proportionality of the sanction to the essential nature of the information provided.

The Court’s reasoning in relation to the first question, however, may be called into question. A literal interpretation of Article 19(3) CCD does not address the unfairness of terms used by the creditor but instead focuses on two distinct elements: first, that the APRC’s calculation is based on the assumption that the credit agreement remains valid for the agreed period; and second, that both parties will fulfil their respective obligations under the agreement. The unfairness of certain contract terms, on the other hand, means that they are null and void ab initio under Article 6(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, with the consequence that no obligations arise from them.

The first part of Article 19(3) CCD assumes the continued validity of the credit agreement. However, since finding the terms at issue null and void is unlikely to render the agreement invalid - as they do not appear to be essential to the contractual obligation (see Profi Credit Polska III, paras 68–70), although this must be verified under national law - this part of Article 19(3) CCD would not apply here. The same reasoning extends to the second part of Article 19(3) CCD: if obligations based on unfair terms do not exist ab initio, there is no obligation to fulfil on the side of any of the party.

It is also unclear how concluding that the APRC’s calculation, when partially based on unfair contract terms - leading to an overstatement of the APRC - does not infringe the information obligation under Article 10(2)(g) CCD, would contribute to achieving a high level of consumer protection. This raises at least three concerns.

First, in such cases, creditors would not face additional disincentives against using unfair terms in credit agreements. This appears inconsistent with Recital 20 of the CCD Preamble (“Creditors’ actual knowledge of the costs should be assessed objectively, taking into account the requirements of professional diligence”), which suggests that creditors could reasonably be expected to know when they are using unfair terms.

Second, since the APRC was overstated, it is unclear how the average consumer could accurately determine - not merely approximate - the extent to which the stipulated APRC would affect their future rights and obligations under the credit agreement. This appears to contradict the Court’s reasoning in its response to the second question, where the transparency of information is deemed crucial for consumer decision-making.

Third, it also seems to conflict with the Court’s reasoning in Pereničová and Perenič, here it held that an incorrect APRC constitutes false information regarding the total cost of credit and the price under Article 6(1)(d) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), as it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision they would not have otherwise taken (para 41). However, the Court may have drawn a distinction between cases where the actual APRC is lower than that stipulated in the contract (Lexitor II) and those where it is higher (Pereničová and Perenič), as well as between the transparency requirements under the CCD and those under the UCPD. Yet, these distinctions are not explicitly addressed in the commented judgment. Further clarification from the Court on this point would be necessary to provide much-needed clarity.

One size fits all? Average consumer in collective proceedings, CJEU in C‑450/22

 Dear readers, 

it is with genuine excitement (albeit with some delay) that I type out some thoughts in reaction to a very rich new decision by the CJEU, namely Caixabank and others of 4 July 2024 (C‑450/22).

This case is, shockingly but not incredibly, yet another instalment in the floor clauses saga that we have so often written about. It is especially salient, however, both in that it delivers additional insight in the relationship between the national and European dimensions of the story, and in that it decides important points of law in the still relatively underdeveloped area of collective proceedings. 

Our readers will remember the story: in 2013, the Spanish Tribunal Supremo (TS) declared that commonly used “clausolas suelo”, or “floor terms” which made sure that interest rates in variable interest rate mortgage contract would, counterintuitively, never change below a certain minimum rate – were unfair. The case subsequently reached the CJEU when the same TS tried to limit in time the effects of its judgement - which the CJEU (in its 2016 Gutiérrez Naranjo case) decided it was not the TS's call to make. Years later, the controversy is not over since affected consumers are still trying to recover unduly paid interests.

What was this specific preliminary ruling application about, though? The TS was invested with questions of law concerning a very large cease-and-desist cum damages lawsuit against, eventually, circa one hundred banks. The dispute followed declarations that floor terms included in many contracts were non-transparent and unfair under the Spanish rules implementing the Unfair Terms Directive. Spanish courts had previously found that this unfairness occurred, in particular, when the terms considered were presented in particularly misleading ways - hidden, framed by terms that looked like they reduced their impact, and so forth. The defending banks, however, questioned the rather wholesale application of the transparency test - was it not supposed, according to the UTD and CJEU case law, to be carried out having in mind the specific circumstances of each individual case? How could it be applied, in collective proceedings, to clauses in different contracts, offered to different customers, with different variations of the overall contract drafting?

This question was asked at two levels: first, as to whether in general the idea of collective proceedings for transparency did not clash with the possibility to assess on a case-by-case basis; second, whether in the specific case of this dispute, concerning contracts offered to very different segments of the consumer mortgage markets, it would not be misplaced to apply the same "average consumer" standard to assess all the concerned terms. Ex ante, the first question would have looked moot to an informed observer; the second seems to me less obvious, even though the Court seemed to find it relatively easy to answer. We will look at those questions in order. 

In the first question, the court had to consider whether transparency assessment under the UCTD could be carried out "in the context of a collective action brought against a large number of sellers or suppliers operating in the same economic sector, and concerning a very large number of contracts."

In answering this question, the Court acknowledged that in individual proceedings, assessing whether a term meets the transparency requirement requires considerations of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the individual contract. This specific feature of the assessment can obviously not be transposed to collective proceedings. The rest of the test, however, can be transposed. In this sense, national courts will have to assess

"in the light of the nature of the goods or services which are the subject matter of the contracts concerned, whether the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, is in a position, at the time the contact is concluded, to understand the functioning of that term and to evaluate its potentially significant economic consequences. To that end, that court must take into account all the standard contractual and pre-contractual practices followed by each seller or supplier concerned, including, in particular, the drafting of the term in question and its position in the standard-form contracts used by each seller or supplier, the advertising employed for the types of contract concerned by the collective action, the dissemination of generalised pre-contractual offers aimed at consumers and any other circumstances which the court might consider relevant in order to exercise its power of review with regard to each of the defendants"

The national court, thus, will have to apply the average consumer test to a range of different practices and different actors. This can make the litigation complex, but, according to the Court, does not make collective proceedings non-viable as long as they meet the two requirements set in the directive's article 7(3), namely that they concern similar terms used or recommended by operators or associations of operators in the same sector. A different interpretation would plausibly undermine the whole construction of collective proceedings under the provision. 

So far, so good. The next part of the answer, however, may prove a bit trickier in the future. The second question, the Court said, required essentially to consider whether the average consumer, "who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect" can be used as benchmark to assess the transparency of a term (or similar terms) used in multiple contracts "where those contracts are aimed at specific categories of consumers and that term has been used for a very long period of time during which the degree of awareness of that term was developing." (para 47)

In the case under consideration, the referring court had observed that the concerned contracts had been concluded, over a long period of time, by "consumers who had taken over mortgage loans concluded by real estate developers, consumers coming under social housing finance programmes or public housing access programmes according to certain age brackets, or consumers who had obtained loans under a special scheme on account of their profession" (para 51). 

According to the CJEU, however, it is "exactly the heterogeneity" of the public concerned that makes recourse to the "legal fiction" of the average consumer necessary in order to be able to assess the terms in collective proceedings. (para 52). In contrast, it is possible that different assessments concerning the transparency of a term at the time of concluding the contract could have to be made because of supervening events alerting the general public to the significance of certain terms - here, the floor clauses. National courts can take this into account, to the extent that such a change in perception could be documented on the basis of "concrete and objective evidence" rather than "inferred from the passage of time alone" (para 55).  The judgement recalls that, during oral proceedings, the objective event or matter of common knowledge could consist in the collapse in interest rates, characteristic of the 2000s, which led to the application of the floor clauses and therefore to consumers becoming aware of the economic effects of those clauses, or in the delivery of judgment No 241/2013 of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) of 9 May 2013, which found that those clauses were not transparent" were suggested as possible relevant moments - it is then for the referring court to ascertain whether such events would have led to a change "over time, in the level of attention and information of the average consumer at the time a mortgage loan agreement was concluded." (para 56). 

The follow-up of this case will be interesting to observe for at least two reasons: on the one hand, the question of what specific developments can be considered to have generated a change, in the degree of attentiveness, alertness or information, relevant to how an average consumer would have understood a certain clause requires a degree of fact-finding that is partially at odds with the abstracting ideal of the average consumer. It also leaves national courts, and potentially lower courts, considerable leeway – especially given the limited reviewability of matters of fact in many jurisdictions. 

 

Second, while instrumental to an overall logical conclusion here – safeguarding the Directive’s explicit indication that collective proceedings should not be confined to entirely homogeneous terms and contracts – the idea that the target consumer doesn’t matter for applying the average consumer test seems to contradict the spirit of the Unfair Commercial Practices directive, which the average consumer notion is ultimately borrowed from. In that context, namely, article 5(2) declares unfair a practice that is likely to affect the economic behaviour of the average consumer or “the average member of the group when a commercial practice is directed to a particular group of consumers” -the so-called “targeted consumer” benchmark. Why would the referring court not be expected or be able to consider these different targeted consumers? Besides being potentially at odds with the UCPD, this insistence on abstraction seems to contradict the Court’s insistence that national courts can distinguish between what average consumers would understand before a certain event and what they would understand thereafter: if empirics matter in this case, why not with reference to targeted consumers?

Don't know about you, but I will be taking this question with me into my holidays! Hopefully many interesting developments to comment on after the summer break. Stay tuned 

Validity of limitation periods for claiming mortgage costs back from banks - CJEU in Caixabank (C-484/21) and Banco Santander (C-561/21)

While many consumer lawyers are currently busy analysing the details of the opinion of AG Emiliou in Compass Banca case (C-646/22) (and we will add our own analysis of it in the coming days, too), on the same day (April 25) two judgments were issued by the CJEU clarifying the consequences of terms' unfairness on restitution of costs paid by consumers. Both in Caixabank (Délai de prescription) (C-484/21) and Banco Santander (Départ du délai de prescription) (C-561/21) Spanish courts posed questions concerning validity of various limitation periods for consumers raising a restitution claim for 'the costs clause'. The costs clause included in mortgage loan contracts obliged consumers to pay all the costs relating to the mortgage's creation. This may encompass notary, registry and agency fees.

The CJEU refers back to the Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others case (C-154/15 - with our comment here) to reaffirm the obligation of national courts to facilitate restitution of amounts consumers paid, which were imposed by an unfair contract term (e.g. paras 16-17 in C-484/21). Could national limitation periods stand in the way of such consumer claims? Previously, the CJEU already confirmed that limitation periods could be set in national laws as applicable to restitution claims brought by consumers in enforcing their rights from UCTD, however, these cannot make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise such rights (para 27 in C-484/21).

In short, regarding limitation periods for restitution claims, which are raised by consumers following a declaration of unfairness of terms setting the payment obligation, CJEU decided as follows:

1. They cannot start running from the date of the payment, irrespective of whether consumers were or could reasonably have been aware of the unfairness of terms at the time of the payment, or before the term was found to be void (paras 30, 32, 34-35 in C-484/21).
2. They cannot start running from the date on which the national supreme court delivered a judgment in a separate, earlier case, declaring a corresponding term unfair (C-484/21 and C-561/21). To pay attention to: The CJEU highlights here the lack of obligation for service providers to inform their consumers that terms in their contracts are equivalent in scope to terms in other contracts that have been found unfair (para 41 in C-484/21). Further, it mentions that average consumers cannot be 'required not only to keep himself or herself regularly informed, on his or her own initiative, of decisions of the national supreme court relating to standard terms contained in contracts of a similar nature to those which or she has concluded with sellers or suppliers, but also to determine, on the basis of a judgment of a national supreme court, whether a term included in a particular contract is unfair' (para 45 in C-484/21).
3. They cannot start running on the date of the CJEU's judgments, which confirmed, in principle, that limitation periods for actions for restitutions are compatible with EU law (provided they are equivalent and effective) (C-561/21). (for similar as above reasons + the fact that CJEU often leaves determination of unfairness to national courts - para 58 in C-561/21)
4. They can start running on the date on which the decision about unfairness of a term in a given case becomes final, without prejudice to the trader's right to prove that consumers were or could have been reasonably aware of the unfairness before the decision was made (paras 35-38 in C-561/21).

May airlines use T&Cs to prohibit passengers from assigning their rights to claim damages? - CJEU in Air Europa Lineas Aéreas (C-173/23)

In today's Air Europa Lineas Aéreas judgment (C-173/23) the CJEU looked into the application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD) to contracts concluded between air passengers and air carriers. Specifically, the passenger in case suffered damages as a result of a delay in receiving his checked-in baggage. He assigned his claim for damages against the air carrier (Air Europa) to a third party (Eventmedia). The air carrier disputes the transfer of rights to Eventmedia, claiming that assignment of passenger rights is prohibited by a clause in its general conditions of carriage (para 12). The referring court had sufficient evidence to declare this clause unfair ex officio but had doubts whether it could do so procedurally. First, the consumer was not part of the judicial proceedings, as he was represented by the assignee of his rights (whose standing was contested). Second, if the court declared the clause unfair the consumer, still remaining outside the judicial procedure, would not have received a chance to object to the application of this finding. 

Ex officio unfairness testing after consumers assigned their claims

First, the CJEU reminds that it has already previously declared (in the DelayFix case - C-519/19) that the UCTD's application is based on the capacity of the parties when they were concluding a contract (B2C) rather than the identity of parties entering into a dispute (paras 17-18). Therefore, the UCTD applies to more cases than just the ones, in which a dispute is between B2C contractual parties (para 25).

The CJEU reminds further that the ex officio judicial mechanism aims to compensate for the imbalance between consumers and professional parties (para 29). Other procedural issues remain in the discretion of the Member States, provided that they comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (para 31).

To comply with the principle of equivalence here, the national court needs to determine whether national law allows it to ex officio assess whether a contractual term is contrary to national rules of public policy. If the answer is affirmative, the unfairness assessment also needs to take place ex officio (paras 34-35). This conclusion is not impacted by the consumer's presence in the judicial procedure, as if conditions for the applicability of the UCTD have been fulfilled (e.g., contract concluded B2C) its provisions benefit from having been assigned an equivalent status to domestic rules of public policy.

The assessment differs regarding the observance of the principle of effectiveness, as this considers the specifics of each procedure and the role that the contested legal provision plays in it. Specifically, " (...) whether a national procedural provision makes the application of EU law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, and, where relevant, the principles which lie at the basis of the national legal system, such as the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of proceedings (...)." (para 37). Here then the fact that the procedure occurs between two professional parties weakens the need to provide as much protection against unfair terms, as if a consumer was one of the parties in the dispute, as there should be more balance between parties in the dispute (para 38). The principle of effectiveness does not require then the national court to test unfairness ex officio (para 39), unless the professional assignee of the consumer's claim had no real chance to rely on the unfairness in the procedure (para 40).

Consequences of unfairness in light of audi alterem partem when consumers are not part of the judicial process

When national courts find a term unfair ex officio, they follow the rules of audi alterem partem, of a fair hearing, by apprising parties in the dispute of court's findings and giving them an opportunity to debate these and to be heard (para 44). This applies also in case the dispute is between the assignee of the consumer rights and it is this assignee that needs to be informed of the unfairness finding, alongside the trader (para 46). As the consumer is not a party to the dispute, they do not need to be informed of the court's finding of unfairness and do not need to address it (para 49). It is the assignee of their rights that may object to it instead (para 47), although, obviously, they are unlikely to do so as they would then lose standing in the procedure (para 48).

***

The first part of the judgment has enormous practical relevance, as air passengers commonly assign their rights for compensation to third parties. It is, therefore, important for the effectiveness of passenger protection framework that air carriers could not block this process by prohibiting the transfer of rights in their general terms and conditions. This judgment will help assure this further, following the previous judgment in the DelayFix case (see our comment here), as professional assignees of consumers' claims will be able to raise unfairness of the prohibition of transfer of rights themselves. If this is prohibited or hindered, they could then rely on the breach of the principle of effectiveness and expect national courts to test unfairness ex officio (pursuant to para 40). This way assures more legal certainty than relying on the ex officio unfairness testing due to the principle of equivalence, as it could differ between the Member States whether ex officio testing of measures of public policy was allowed.

Facilitating enforcement of unfairness control - CJEU in Getin Noble Bank and Others (C-531/22)

Happy 2024 Dear Readers!

We are starting a new year of reporting with the reference to the last week's judgment in the Polish case referred to the CJEU as Getin Noble Bank and Others (C-531/22 - not yet available in English, but accessible in other languages). This judgments continues to provide guidance on the application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive to terms in mortgage contracts indexed in Swiss Francs. The CJEU considered two questions/issues: 

1. Ex officio judicial authority to test unfairness while overseeing enforcement of a final payment order with res judicata status

To not keep you in suspense: The CJEU decided that national courts may ex officio assess unfairness in such circumstances, provided that: 1) national law did not allow for unfairness test at the moment of issuing of a payment order, or 2) if such unfairness test is only allowed if a consumer would have objected to the issued payment order, provided that there is a significant risk that a given consumer is not going to issue an objection. This risk could result from: the short time allowed for filing the objection, objection's costs compared to the debt amount, or the lack of obligation to provide consumer with all the information necessary to determine their rights in this respect (para 61). This is, in large extent, confirming Court's previous judgment in Leasing România judgment (C-725/19) (paras 50-51).

This is an important judgment to address some inefficiencies of the Polish civil law procedure that may limit the scope of the unfairness testing. Specifically, payment orders may be issued by Polish courts upon an electronic request by creditors, without the courts having either legal or technical access to contractual documents, on the basis of which this payment order is issued. If the debtor does not file an objection to the issued payment order within 2 weeks from its delivery, they become final with the res judicata status. This means that they may not be further questioned in enforcement proceedings (para 49). As the CJEU previously considered a 2 week timeframe too short to reasonably give a chance to consumers to file an objection (paras 54-55), this judgment clearly indicates the lack of compliance of the Polish civil procedural rules with the effective consumer protection framework against unfair contract terms. This finding is not weakened by the inertia of the consumer during previous judicial proceedings with them as a party, as the option to file an objection to the payment order is the only opportunity for the consumer to procedurally stop the enforcement proceedings, and as such the consumer needs to be given a real chance to do so (considering the timeframe, costs etc.) (para 60).

2. Recognition of an unfair character of a contract term, upon it having been entered into a register of unfair contract terms, also in subsequent judicial proceedings against a given consumer, even with a different trader involved and when the term has been differently drafted, but when it retained the same substance and led to the same consequences.

The CJEU first (paras 69-73) recalls the conditions for the validity of a register of unfair contract terms in national legal systems, which were first discussed in the Biuro case (see our comment here). Pursuant to the Court, the opportunity for national courts to compare a given contract term to a term already entered into a register after previous judicial proceedings, may lead to a more efficient and faster enforcement of the unfairness control, freeing consumers from harmful consequences of unfair terms in many contracts simultaneously (para 75). The finding of unfairness of a given term could then indeed be recognised and applied also in subsequent judicial proceedings - even with a different trader involved, and when the term has been differently drafted, but when it retained the same substance and led to the same consequences (para 78).

Consequences of unfair core terms - CJEU in mBank (C-140/22)

Last Thursday the CJEU issued a new judgment in the saga of Swiss francs mortgage loan contracts (C-140/22 - there is no English language text available yet). It was a Polish court who asked for a clarification of a few issues related to voiding such contracts as a result of them containing an unfair contract term, the removal of which would not enable the contract to remain in force.

Declaring unfairness 

The CJEU recalls its past judgment emphasising the obligation of national courts to assess (un)fairness of contract terms and ensure that any finding of unfairness results is fully remedied (Karel de Grote-Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen C-147/16 - with our comment - and Abanca C-70/17 - with our comment) (paras 53-55). Previous case law mentioned that consumers could, however, object to national courts attaching all the consequences resulting from finding of an unfair contract term, pursuant to the UCTD. Namely, when consumers are informed by courts about the presence of an unfair contract term in their contract, they could then decide, while fully informed, to still be bound by that term, which would give effect to the freedom of contract  and the UCTD's protection (para 57). The CJEU rightly emphasises now that this right for consumers to object to courts applying the UCTD provisions should not be interpreted as placing an obligation on consumers to declare that they do not object to the UCTD's application (para 56). This could deter consumers from benefiting from the scope of the UCTD's protection and further discourage traders from agreeing to consumers' out-of-court settlement claims (para 61). The CJEU reminds also that even if consumers are not present at court, the CJEU has an obligation to ex officio assess the unfairness of a contract term and apply the consequences following from the UCTD (para 60).

In short, the CJEU decided that the Unfair Contract Terms Directive should not be interpreted by national courts as requiring consumers to declare: 1) their consent to voiding an unfair contract term; 2) their awareness of the consequences that this voidness would have (voiding the whole contract); and 3) their consent to voiding the whole contract.

Financial consequences of unfairness

The CJEU recalls that when a mortgage loan contract is declared void, due to the finding of an unfair core term, consumers should only reimburse the bank by the amount of a borrowed loan, and possibly also statutory interest if they delay this reimbursement (para 62; also Bank M, C-520/21 - see our comment). Any further claims for reimbursement by banks would limit the deterrent effect of the UCTD (para 63).

Consequently, if as the result of finding an unfair core contract term the entire mortgage loan contract is voided, the UCTD prohibits national courts from calculating the impact of that voidness in a way that deducts from the consumer compensation of loan amounts paid to the bank, amounts of interest that the bank would have received if the contract remained in force.

Influencer Legal Hub: New resource

By Laura Chouette on Unsplash

The European Commission launched today a new legal resource: Influencer Legal Hub. Prepared in collaboration with experts from Utrecht University and University of Leeds, it provides both textual and audio-visual help to influencers on their legal obligations. The idea behind this new legal resource is to ensure that the complex (by now) landscape of European consumer law could be easier traversed by content creators engaging in commercial transactions (earning money from promoting specific content). With them better informed, consumer protection level should increase, as the amount of misleading practices on various social media should decrease. Having said that, this new portal provides also plenty of information as a starting point for anyone researching influencer marketing; or even more broadly, for anyone interested in assuring fairness online. 

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.

Suspending payments of monthly loan instalments for consumers awaiting finding of unfairness - CJEU in Getin Noble Bank (C-287/22)

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash

On June 15th, aside the Bank M judgment (see our previous comment here), the CJEU addressed Polish law implementing the Unfair Contract Terms Directive also in the case Getin Noble Bank (C-287/22). Also in this judgment the CJEU chose for a consumer-friendly interpretation of the UCTD, precluding national courts from dismissing a consumer's application for the grant of interim measures (namely, a suspension of the payment of the monthly instalments due under a loan agreement) when a decision on the invalidity of the loan agreement, due to unfairness of its terms, is pending. Such interim measures should be granted by national courts, if this is necessary to ensure 'the full effectiveness' of the invalidity decision. 

Polish consumers in the given case claimed unfairness of terms in a loan agreement converting the loan amount into Swiss francs at the purchase rate fixed by the bank, with monthly instalments repayable in Polish zlotys at the Swiss francs sale rate, also unilaterally fixed by the bank. What interests us, and the courts, however, is that in their claim they asked for the following interim measures being granted: 1) suspension of the obligation to pay monthly instalments until the final judicial decision; 2) prohibiting the bank to issue consumers with a notice of termination; 3) prohibiting the bank to publish any information that the applicants are in default on their loan payments during this time. The first sought measure could help with the improvement of the financial situation of consumers, who are likely to await the first court's decision for min of 2-3 years (para 53). The second measure would prevent the bank from taking punitive measure as a result of consumers' pursuing their claims. The third measure would not allow the bank to tarnish consumers' credit score.

Polish law allows to grant interim measures only when there is a 'legitimate interest' of the applicants in them, which amounts to showing that "the failure to grant interim measures would prevent or seriously impede the enforcement of the forthcoming judgment in the main proceedings or the achievement of the purpose of the proceedings in that case" (para 19). Polish courts have so far not been willing to recognise the existence of such an interest in Swiss francs loan cases, due to either of the following: 1) invalidity of a contract as a result of unfairness not leading to enforcement; 2) the need for interim measures to help avoid consumer harm, which could e.g. occur if the bank was in a poor financial situation; 3) consumers possibly being required to repay the loan capital when unfairness and invalidity is declared, which means that their continued payment of monthly instalments would be beneficial to them, limiting the final repayment amount (para 20).

The CJEU first refers to the past judgment in Aziz case (see our comment on it here), recalling that it already precluded national law from not allowing to grant interim measures to consumers awaiting a declaration of unfairness (and its consequences), when interim measures were necessary to ensure that the final national judgment is effective in protecting consumers (para 41). In Aziz case the interim measures were related to staying enforcement proceedings when consumers defaulted on paying their mortgages, which in Spain led to accelerated proceedings of mortgage enforcement.

Further, it reminds that in the case Fernández Oliva and Others (joined cases C-568/14-570/14 - see here) it considered granting of interim measures as necessary to protect consumers from the risk of paying higher than necessary monthly instalments during lengthy judicial proceedings (para 42).

As, pursuant to Polish law, consumers may only claim repayment of monthly instalments already paid at the moment of bringing an unfairness claim to court, this means that without the interim measures, they would need to bring a second claim to courts after succeeding in the first one (para 22). They would also be obliged to pay legal costs for the second time (para 50). The CJEU highlights that such an application of Polish law would make at least partially the forthcoming final decision ineffective, as it would "not have the effect of restoring the legal and factual situation of that consumer in the absence of that unfair term" (para 48).

Importantly, it is up to national courts to consider how likely the finding of unfairness is in a given case. If there is sufficient evidence of unfair terms, the removal of which could lead to invalidating the contract, plus there is evidence that consumers are likely to overpay banks without courts granting interim measures - the latter should be awarded (para 59).

No colouring outside the lines for national courts (exchange rate risk in consumer loan contracts) - CJEU in AxFina Hungary (C-705/21)

On April 27th the CJEU issued another judgment in the saga of consumer loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, AxFina Hungary (C-705/21). It discussed further consequences, pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 UCTD, of finding unfair such terms that place the exchange risk on the consumer, when the loan is denominated in a foreign currency, but consumers repay it in the national currency.

This case concerned a smaller consumer law (ca 7k Euro) taken out to purchase a vehicle and repayable over 10 years. The loan was denominated in Swiss francs and repayable in Hungarian forint. Hungarian court declared invalidity of this loan contract on the basis of the unfairness of the term imposing the exchange rate risk on consumers. On appeal the referral was made to assess the compliance with EU consumer law of current Hungarian practices regarding unfair terms in consumer loan contracts. Namely, as paras 17-19 explains, following Hungarian Supreme Court's non-binding position, Hungarian case law tended to declare consumer loan contracts with unfair terms on exchange rate risk 'temporarily applicable' - until the date the judgment was issued. This means that the contract is terminated for the future, but not seen as having been invalid in the past. When removing 'the cause of the invalidity' courts would either convert the loan into Hungarian forints (removing entire exchange risk) or set a ceiling on the exchange rate risk (removing part of exchange risk). 

Declaring loan contracts valid and amending their terms: Not a default

The CJEU is clear in condemning Hungarian case law practices: If a term places exchange rate risk on consumers and as a result is declared unfair, which leads to invalidity of a loan contract, this contract cannot then be declared valid and have its terms amended by courts. It does not matter whether the amendment would change the currency of the loan or of the interest rate or set the ceiling on the exchange rate (para 50). The court recalls the previously raised arguments on the need to assure the dissuasive effect of the UCTD by not allowing national courts to modify unfair contract terms (paras 38-41). The previously adopted exception, for when invalidating a contract due to unfairness would expose consumers to particularly detrimental consequences, and where there is a possibility to replace the unfair term with a supplementary provision of national law, still stands (para 42). If such supplementary provisions do not exist, national courts could still help consumers facing detrimental consequences of contract's invalidity, e.g. by inviting parties to negotiate new terms, within the framework set by national courts (para 46) or by ordering repayment of sums wrongly received by the lender on the basis of the unfair term as unjust enrichment (para 48). But national courts, in their efforts to protect consumers from detrimental consequences, cannot go beyond what is 'strictly necessary' to restore contractual balance.

This is perhaps just a reiteration of the previously declared rules (mainly in Lombard Lizing and Banca B, see here on the latter), but it is a needed repetition. This in light of the tendency of national courts to still try to colour outside the lines set by the CJEU in cases related to consumer loan contracts denominated in foreign currencies.

Substituting unfair exchange rate terms with supplementary provisions

Further, the CJEU reiterated Dziubak (see here) and stressed the narrow scope for what constitutes supplementary provisions, with which national courts may replace unfair exchange rate terms in consumer loan contracts. This substitution may only happen in exceptional cases, i.e. when consumers face 'particularly unfavourable consequences' (para 52). Further, such provisions cannot be of a general nature (para 55), as they had to be adopted to specifically address the need to restore the balance between the parties (para 54). This also means that  such supplementary provisions need to 'usefully replace the same term by a mere substitution by the national court which does not require action on the part of that court that would amount to revising the content of an unfair term in that contract' (para 56).

Going in blind - Consequences of no opportunity to read insurance terms: CJEU in Occidental (C-263/22)

Last week, on 20 April, the CJEU issued a judgment in the case Occidental - Companhia Portuguesa de Seguros de Vida (C-263/22) interpreting further provisions of Articles 3-6 of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive.

By Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash 

The case concerned a bank loan taken by a Portuguese couple, who joined a group insurance contract between the bank and Occidental, an insurance company. Occidental was to guarantee repayment in the event of the consumer's permanent incapacity. When consumer became permanently incapacitated, the insurer refused re-payment, invoking invalidity of the insurance contract due to incorrect and incomplete health declaration by consumer. The insurance contract also excluded from the cover any permanent incapacity resulting from illness that consumers suffered from prior to the contract's conclusion. Consumers claimed, however, that they were never informed about this exclusion clause and that they also did not provide their own health questionnaire to the insurer, as a bank employee completed it for them. 

Portuguese court struggled with two strands approach to the above situation in Portuguese case law, either recognising the insurers' duty to notify policy terms to policyholders or not, and the compliance of the second approach with the UCTD.

Opportunity to read

The first and second questions are interpreted as inquiring about the scope of obligation to create an opportunity to read terms and conditions for consumers. The CJEU reiterates the compliance rules with the principle of transparency, including the need to provide relevant information to consumers before the conclusion of the contract (para 27). Importantly, the CJEU draws attention the fact that with linked contracts (consumers concluding loan and insurance contracts simultaneously) consumers 'vigilance regarding the extent of the risks covered by that insurance contract' will not be the same as when they are concluding loan and insurance contracts separately (para 28). Consumers will need also to have access to all terms of a contract before its conclusion (para 29), regardless whether these are core contract terms (paras 30 and 31), incl. receiving information on 'the specific features of the arrangements for covering the loan repayments' in the event of permanent incapacity to work (para 28). After all, transparency means being able to evaluate economic consequences flowing from the concluded agreement.

To sum up, if consumers did not have access to full terms and conditions prior to concluding the contract, they could invoke UCTD protection against the trader/service provider. Further, the attention drawn by the CJEU to the increased need for transparency when linked contracts are concluded could result in service providers needing to re-evaluate their disclosures in such circumstances.

Consequences of lack of opportunity to read insurance terms on insurance cover

Since consumers had no chance to read the terms of the insurance cover on possible exclusions from the cover's scope, this lack of transparency would weigh in on the evaluation of unfairness (paras 40-41). The CJEU proceeds to outline in details how national court should conduct the unfairness test, i.e. assessing good faith and checking for a significant imbalance in parties rights and obligations to the contract. Importantly, the CJEU draws a conclusion that '(...) by not allowing the consumer concerned to become acquainted, prior to the conclusion of that contract, with the information relating to those contractual terms and all the consequences of the conclusion of that contract, the seller or supplier places that risk, arising from any permanent incapacity, in whole or at least in part, on that consumer' (para 50). If, consequently, the national court would find that consumers would not accept these terms in individual negotiations, then the seller/supplier should be seen as acting not in good faith and the term as unfair (para 51). The term would then be void and not enforceable against consumers (paras 52-53). This legal status  of unfair terms could not be changed by national legislation regulating civil liability of insurers for failure to notify policyholders (para 53). Such a civil liability could be pursued separately by consumers (para 55).

To sum up, the fact that consumers had no opportunity to read the term does not lead to a consequence of that term being automatically void under EU consumer law. This circumstance weighs in though, rather heavily, on the unfairness test. Only when the term is declared unfair, it needs to be considered as void, with all the consequences attributable to this.

Consumer protection extended to mixed-purpose contracts - CJEU in S.V. (Immeuble en copropriété) (C-485/21)

Last Thursday in the case S.V. (Immeuble en copropriété) (C-485/21) the CJEU provided us with new guidance as to the scope of the notion of a consumer.

Image by Spencer Wing from Pixabay    

In the given Bulgarian case, an owner of an apartment in a building of a housing association (in co-ownership) concluded a contract with a company that was to provide management and maintenance of the communal areas of that building. The contract included terms on late payment fees, which ended up being contested as to their fairness (excessive amounts and lack of transparency) under the UCTD. The question was whether consumer protection framework was applicable at all to this situation.

The CJEU reminds that the notion of a 'consumer' is objective in nature and should be assessed by reference to a functional criterion (para 25). This means that is only relevant to consider whether the contract was concluded in the course of activities outside a trade, business or profession. Consequently, what is required of national courts it to establish whether the party in the given case, a natural person, 'does not use that apartment for purposes which fall exclusively within her trade, business or profession', as that would exclude that party from the scope of consumer protection (para 27). This is a welcomed confirmation that the 'consumer' notion applies broadly in mixed-purpose contracts, that is when consumers use goods for a mix of personal and professional purposes. The CJEU in this paragraph seems to imply that any mixed-purpose contract could be covered by consumer protection framework (by referring to 'exclusive' use for professional purposes). Further, in paragraph 32 of the judgment the CJEU specifically mentions situations where natural persons could use an apartment 'constituting his or her personal home for professional purposes also, such as in the context of salaried teleworking or in the exercise of a liberal profession'. Again, this is a great example of a modern, progressive approach to the interpretation of the notion of a 'consumer', considering the current realities of many goods being used simultaneously or alternatively for personal and professional purposes. 

Another interesting observation of the CJEU is that it is irrelevant whether some of the activities of a provider of services or a seller 'are the result of the need to comply with specific requirements relating to safety and town and country planning, laid down by the applicable national law' (para 30). Contractual terms reflecting such mandatory statutory provisions may not be tested for unfairness, pursuant to Article 1(2) UCTD, but that exclusion does not stretch as far as to encompass the contract as a whole. Consequently, other terms in that contract may be subject to the unfairness test (para 31). This is consistent with the past narrow interpretation of various UCTD's exceptions to its scope of application.

Transparent language of consumer credit contracts - CJEU in A. S.A. (C-212/20)

makabera at Pixabay

On November 18, the CJEU issued a judgment in the Polish case A. S.A. (C-212/20), which once again inquired as to what exactly Polish consumers would need to prove to claim unfairness of a term in a credit contract indexed to Swiss francs, and as to consequences of finding such a term unfair. Consumers in a given case signed a statement, when concluding the mortgage contract, that they were aware of the risks of indexing their credit to a foreign currency. Further, the statement mentioned that consumers were informed about their credit rates being determined in a foreign currency, but needing to be paid back in PLN (Polish zlotys) pursuant to the rules in the attached bank regulation.

The contested provisions of the bank regulation refer to the way in which the indexation in the foreign currency should be calculated, which could be interpreted in more than one ways. Further, the national court inquired as to the feasibility of placing on banks an expectation to precisely determine how the credit rates should be paid back (and following which indexation mechanisms for a foreign currency), when a credit contract is concluded for 40 years and these mechanisms are likely to keep on changing (para 25). The national court asked whether it could look for a common intention of the parties as to the calculation of the credit rates to determine the precise effect of the indexation clause (para 26).

The judgment in this case unsurprisingly reiterates previously mentioned key points that courts should follow when interpreting consumer credit contracts and assessing their terms' fairness: 1) transparency is crucial; 2) courts may not interfere to alleviate the consequences of unfairness for the banks.

Ad 1)

The court clarifies first that the current case does not pertain to core terms, which means that the consumer credit terms needed to be transparent pursuant to Article 5 UCTD (which de facto is not much different than transparency requirement of Article 4(2) UCTD - see again para 38). The CJEU reiterates the most recent requirement for the national court to interpret and apply transparency requirements broadly (from BNP Paribas judgment, see here) (paras 41-42). An average consumer needs to understand the specific functioning of the calculation method of the interest rate to be able to assess on the basis of unambiguous and comprehensible criteria potentially significantly adverse economic consequences for consumers' financial obligations (para 42). The CJEU generally agrees that a credit contract concluded for 40 years may hinder the lender in foreseeing all the possible financial consequences which the indexation mechanism may lead to (para 51). However, this should not excuse the lender not specifying all the criteria used to determine the interest rate (para 53), which here seemed to be left unsaid (paras 46-48). The consumer may not know exactly how much they will need to pay at which point of time in the future, but they should know exactly how at any one point of time that interest rate will be calculated (paras 53-54). This would protect consumers against their information asymmetries.

Ad 2)

The CJEU reiterates that non-transparency of a standard term is one of the elements that courts should consider in the unfairness test (para 58). However, the Court does not doubt the unfairness of a term that prevents consumers from estimating the scope of their financial obligations under a credit contract (para 64). Further, the national courts continue to have to refrain from supplementing unfair contractual provisions in a way that would give them effect by eliminating the unfair element (paras 67-68). That prohibition applies even if the interpretation by the national court of the standard term attempted to give effect to the shared understanding of the clause by the parties.

Of unfair terms, novation agreements and other not so magical creatures - CJEU in C-19/20

Dear readers, 

as the spring advances (not really, for those of us in continental Europe, but we keep faith), we should catch up with some case-law developments from the past weeks. 

Hereby, thus, a quick overview of a somewhat convoluted case decided by the CJEU on 29 April - IW v Bank BPH SA. After Dziubak, it is no surprise that more cases would be pouring in from Poland on the subject of credit in Swiss francs. 

In the case under discussion, the referring court was of the opinion that the consumers had been sufficiently informed about the risks associated with the mortgage contract, so that the main indexation interest was not unfair; however, within this mechanism, the bank had included an indication that the final cost to the consumer would incorporate a resale margin for the bank which was not further elaborated upon in the contractual documents. This left the bank unconstrained in determining such margin and the consumer unaware of what factors may affect the bank's determination.

The blank resale margin clause was later amended by means of an agreement between the parties which, according to the Court, established a sufficiently clear mechanism - thus "fixing" the term. 

While the consumers did not agree with the referring court's assessment of the main indexation terms, ultimately the questions for the CJEU all concerned the situation with regard to the resale margin mechanisms. 

The first question concerned the effect of the agreement amending the resale margin clause on the unfairness assessment: must a court exert unfair terms control in spite of the agreement? According to the Court, in substance, the agreement prevails when the consumers have signed it in full awareness of the fact that they were waving their rights to unfair terms control. Otherwise, the Court is supposed to assess the term and, where it finds it unfair, establish that the consumers are entitled to be put in the same position where they would have been without the agreement. 

The second and third questions concerned the admissibility of a finding that only the resale margin term should be invalidated, while leaving the rest of the indexation mechanism in place. Would such approach go against the CJEU-sanctioned prohibition of court revision of unfair terms? The Court does not give a final answer to this question, but instructs the national court to establish whether the resale margin determination can be considered as a "contractual obligation distinguished from he other contractual terms, capable of being the subject of an individual examination of its unfairness" [para 71]. The removal should not, on the other hand, remove an unfair element within a term, altering "the substance" of such term [para 80]. This is an interesting question in fact: on the one hand, it is obvious that the combination of indexation and resale margin was, taken together, the mechanism through which the cost of credit was fixed. On the other hand, the clause determining the bank's resale margin could very well be separately set at zero, without - as the referring court observes, creating a gap. This sounds, at first appraisal, like a question that would be best addressed in legislation. While the referring court mentioned the existence of legislation dealing with the unfair term in the MS, this legislation, which was passed after the contract was entered into, is in essence irrelevant to the dispute according to the CJEU.

The fourth question is more straightforward and concerns the consequences of finding that the resale margin term was unfair: when should the contract be invalidated? According to established case-law by the CJEU, whether a contract should be held in place after a finding of unfairness depends on whether, under national law, it is capable of continuing to function - based on an objective assessment and thus not on the subjective position of one of the parties [90]. The referring court wondered whether the contract's invalidation had a sanctioning character and to what extent the consumer's preference played a role, to which the court replied by summarising its case-law to the effect that the judge must first determine the consequences of unfairness on the contract and then, when relevant, allow the consumer to decide whether they prefer invalidation of the contract or maintaining the unfair term.

The fifth and final question went into the referring court's role with respect to the consumer's choice between invalidation and preservation of the unfair term: should the court actively inform the consumer about their options and the implication of their choices, or could this function be entrusted to the consumer's legal representation when they have one? The CJEU's answer in this respect is very clear: since it is upon the court to make sure that the consumer's rights in the procedure are respected, and in particular that their decision in respect of the outcome of unfair terms control is the result of "free and informed consent", the court must also inform the consumer about their choices [95].

Nothing in this decision comes particularly as a surprise. The more difficult points, ultimately, go back to the referring court who needs to decide whether the consumer has in fact waived the term's invalidity via the novation agreement and, if not, must assess whether the resale margin mechanism can be severed from the overall indexation mechanism (and, if not, must decide on the future of the contract). Unlike in Dziubak, it is not obvious in this case that the consumers would gain from the contract's overall invalidation, which could or could not add to the case's complexity. Curious what the Polish colleagues in the blog team may have to say on this case!