Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2024/1069

5.2.2024

(Case C-28/22, (1) Getin Noble Bank (Limitation period for actions for restitution))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) - Effects of a finding that a term is unfair - Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency containing unfair terms concerning the exchange rate - Nullity of that contract - Claims for restitution - Limitation period)

(C/2024/1069)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TL, WE

Defendant: Liquidator of Getin Noble Bank S.A., formerly Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national law according to which, following the cancellation of a mortgage loan agreement concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier, on account of unfair terms contained in that agreement, the limitation period for the claims of that seller or supplier stemming from the nullity of that agreement starts to run only as from the date on which the agreement becomes definitively unenforceable, whereas the limitation period for the claims of that consumer stemming from the nullity of that agreement begins to run as from the day on which the consumer became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the unfair nature of the term entailing such nullity.

2.Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding a judicial interpretation of national law according to which it is not for a seller or supplier who has concluded a mortgage loan agreement with a consumer to ascertain whether the consumer is aware of the consequences of the removal of the unfair terms contained in that agreement or of that agreement being no longer capable of continuing in existence if those terms were removed.

3.Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national law according to which, where a mortgage loan agreement concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier is no longer capable of continuing in existence after the unfair terms in that agreement have been removed, that seller or supplier may rely on a right of retention which allows him or her to make the restitution of the sums which it has received from that consumer conditional on that consumer making an offer to repay the sums which he or she has himself or herself received from that seller or supplier or to provide a security for the repayment of those sums, where the exercise by that seller or supplier of that right of retention entails the loss, for that consumer, of the right to obtain default interest as from the expiry of the time limit set for performance by the seller or supplier concerned, following receipt by that seller or supplier of a request to repay the sums he or she had been paid in performance of that agreement.

(1) Language of the case: Polish.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1069/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15