Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/4710

5.8.2024

(Case C-280/24, Malicník)

(C/2024/4710)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and applicant at first instance: A.B.

Other party to the proceedings, defendant at first instance: Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s.

Questions referred

1.Is there a conflict between EU law and case-law such as the judgment handed down by the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, Slovakia) on 28 February 2022, ref. 7Cdo 294/2019, according to which the requirement that the subject matter of the service for which the consumer must pay an arrangement fee be clear and intelligible is met if ‘it follows from the definition of the disputed fee that it is an arrangement fee, i.e. a fee for activities by the lender that are essential for the conclusion of the agreement and that form part of the lender’s internal management and the costs incurred by that lender, i.e. activities by the lender associated with arranging the loan, such as the drafting or conclusion of the agreement, etc.’, and also the amount of the fee was clearly set out?

2.Does the extent of the expenses incurred by the lender in connection with the service associated with such a fee, and thus the question of whether the agreement should indicate the subject matter of that service, or the question of whether the fee is merely remunerative in nature and the lender is not obliged, when determining it, to take into account the expenses it has incurred in connection with providing the service associated with that fee, have any bearing on the assessment of whether the arrangement fee is inadmissible?

3.If the arrangement fee is intended to reflect the expenses incurred by the lender in connection with the service associated with such a fee, is this relevant to the objectives set out in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 in situations where the lender transfers to the consumer, in the form of such a fee, all of the expenses borne by the lender in connection with providing the service associated with that fee, and where the subject matter of the service is in the interest of both parties to the agreement?

The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4710/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—