- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-582/23, Wiszkier: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi – Poland) – R.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) – Powers and obligations of the national court – Insolvency proceedings relating to a natural person – Bankruptcy court has no power to examine ex officio whether the terms of a contract that gave rise to a claim on the list of claims are unfair – No power for that court to order interim measures – Principle of effectiveness)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CA0582
62023CA0582
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/4551
(Case C-582/23,
(2)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) - Powers and obligations of the national court - Insolvency proceedings relating to a natural person - Bankruptcy court has no power to examine ex officio whether the terms of a contract that gave rise to a claim on the list of claims are unfair - No power for that court to order interim measures - Principle of effectiveness)
(C/2025/4551)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: R.S.
Other parties: G. S.A., P.C., acting as trustee in bankruptcy of R.S. and of M.S., M.K., acting as liquidator of G. S.A., J.J., M.G.
Operative part of the judgment
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 national legislation which provides that, in insolvency proceedings relating to natural persons, once the list of claims has been approved by a judicial authority, which has not examined the possible unfairness of the terms of the contract concerned, and proceedings have been commenced before the bankruptcy court, the latter is bound by that list, with the effect that it can neither assess the unfairness of terms contained in a loan agreement on which a claim included on that list is based nor amend that list, but must stay the proceedings and refer the matter of the possible unfairness of those terms to the judicial authority in question.
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, in the context of insolvency proceedings relating to natural persons, does not provide that the bankruptcy court can order interim measures to regulate the situation of the bankrupt pending a decision concluding examination of the unfairness of the terms in a loan agreement, where that agreement has given rise to a claim included on the list of claims approved by a different judicial authority, which has not examined the possible unfairness of the terms of the contract concerned.
—
(1) OJ C, C/2024/406.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4551/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—