Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/3134

(Case C-714/22, (1) Profi Credit Bulgaria (Services ancillary to a credit agreement))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Consumer credit agreements - Directive 2008/48/EC– Article 3(g), Article 10(2)(g) and Article 23 - Total cost of the credit to the consumer - No indication of the relevant costs - Penalty - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1), Article 4(2), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) - Point 1(o) of the annex to Directive 93/13/EEC - Services ancillary to a credit agreement - Terms giving priority to the examination of the credit application of a consumer purchasing those services and to the making available of the sum borrowed as well as providing that consumer with the option of deferring or rescheduling the monthly loan instalments, in return for payment of additional costs)

(C/2024/3134)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.R.G.

Defendant: Profi Credit Bulgaria EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

1)Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC

must be interpreted as meaning that the costs relating to services ancillary to a consumer credit agreement that give priority to the examination of the credit application of the consumer purchasing those services and to the making available of the sum borrowed as well as provide that consumer with the option of deferring the repayment of the monthly instalments or reducing the amount thereof come within the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, and, consequently, that of ‘annual percentage rate of charge’, within the meaning of Article 3(i) of that directive, where the purchase of those services proves to be compulsory in order to obtain the credit concerned or where those services are a contrivance to conceal the actual cost of that credit.

2)Article 10(2)(g) and Article 23 of Directive 2008/48

must be interpreted as not precluding a consumer credit agreement from being deemed to be free of interest and charges where that agreement does not specify an annual percentage rate of charge that includes all of the costs provided for in Article 3(g) of that directive, with the result that its annulment entails only the repayment, by the consumer concerned, of the principal amount loaned.

3)Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that the terms relating to services ancillary to a consumer credit agreement that give priority to the examination of the credit application of the consumer purchasing those services and to the making available of the sum borrowed as well as provide that consumer with the option of deferring the repayment of the monthly instalments or reducing the amount thereof do not come, in principle, within the main subject matter of that agreement, within the meaning of that provision, and are therefore not exempt from an assessment as to whether they are unfair.

4)Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a consumer credit agreement that allows the consumer concerned to defer or reschedule the monthly instalments in return for payment of additional costs, even though it is not certain that that consumer will make use of that option, may be unfair, where, in particular, those costs are clearly disproportionate in relation to the amount of the loan granted.

5)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 national legislation which makes it possible to require a consumer to bear part of the costs of the proceedings where, following a finding that a contractual term is void for being unfair, that consumer’s claim for reimbursement of sums which he or she overpaid under that term is upheld only in part on the ground that it is impossible in practice or excessively difficult to determine the extent of that consumer’s right to reimbursement of those sums.

(1) Language of the case: Bulgarian.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3134/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—