12.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/27

(Case C-448/17) (*)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer credit agreement - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Article 4(2) and Article 5 - Obligation to draft terms in plain intelligible language - Article 7 - Actions brought before the courts by persons or organisations having a legitimate interest in protecting consumers against the use of unfair terms - National law making the possibility for a consumer protection association to intervene in the proceedings subject to the consumer’s consent - Consumer credit - Directive 87/102/EEC - Article 4(2) - Obligation to indicate the annual percentage rate in the written agreement - Agreement containing only a mathematical formula for calculating the annual percentage rate without the information necessary to make that calculation))

(2018/C 408/35)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EOS KSI Slovensko s. r. o.

Defendants: Ján Danko, Margita Danková

Intervener: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

Operative part of the judgment

1.Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read together with the principle of equivalence, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prevents a consumer protection organisation from intervening, in the interests of the consumer, in proceedings seeking an order for payment concerning an individual consumer and to lodge an objection in the absence of a challenge to that order by the consumer if that legislation in fact subjects intervention by consumer associations in disputes falling within the scope of Union law to less favourable conditions than those applicable to disputes exclusively within the scope of national law, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

2.Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, which, although providing, at the stage at which the order for payment is made against the consumer, for an assessment of the unfair nature of the terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, first, entrusts the power to grant that order to an administrative officer of a court who is not a magistrate and, second, provides for a period of 15 days within which to lodge a statement of opposition and requires that the latter contain reasons on the substance, where there is no provision for such an assessment by the court of its own motion at the stage of enforcement of that order, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

3.Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, where a consumer credit agreement does not mention the annual percentage rate of charge and contains only a mathematical formula for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge without the information necessary to make that calculation and, second, does not mention the rate of interest, such a fact is decisive evidence in the assessment undertaken by the national court concerned as to whether the term of that agreement relating to the total cost of the credit is drafted in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of that provision.

(*) Language of the case: Slovak.