17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/15

(Case C-570/21)

(2022/C 24/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: I.S., K.S.

Defendant: YYY. S.A.

Questions referred

1.Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and its recitals be interpreted as not precluding the inclusion in the definition of ‘consumer’ of a person engaged in business activity who entered into an agreement concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency together with a joint-borrower who is not engaged in business activity, which loan is intended to be used partly for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and partly for purposes unconnected with his or her business activity, and not only where business use is so marginal as to be negligible in the overall context of the agreement in question, and where it is irrelevant that the non-business element is predominant? If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,

2.Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and its recitals be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’ defined in that provision extends to a person who, at the time the agreement was signed, was engaged in business activity, whereas the other borrower was not engaged in any business activity, and subsequently those two persons entered into an agreement with a bank concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency where the loan principal was used in part for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and in part for non-business purposes, where business use is not marginal and is not negligible in the overall context of the loan agreement, and where the non-business element is predominant, and given that if the loan principal had not been used for business purposes it would not have been possible to grant the loan for non-business purposes?

Language of the case: Polish.

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.