- 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-280/24, Malicník: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia)) – A.B. v Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Assessment of whether a term which has not been individually negotiated is unfair – Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) – Consumer credit agreement – Arrangement fee clause – Requirement of transparency – Article 4(2) and Article 5 – Clause not specifying the substance of the services supplied in exchange for that fee – Whether defining the fee borne by the consumer and indicating the specific amount of that fee is sufficient – Passing on to the consumer of all of the costs of the activities associated with the arrangement fee)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CA0280
62024CA0280
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/2025/4020
(Case C-280/24,
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Assessment of whether a term which has not been individually negotiated is unfair - Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) - Consumer credit agreement - ‘Arrangement fee’ clause - Requirement of transparency - Article 4(2) and Article 5 - Clause not specifying the substance of the services supplied in exchange for that fee - Whether defining the fee borne by the consumer and indicating the specific amount of that fee is sufficient - Passing on to the consumer of all of the costs of the activities associated with the arrangement fee)
(C/2025/4020)
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.
Operative part of the judgment
Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
must be interpreted as precluding national case-law pursuant to which a clause relating to an arrangement fee and included in a credit agreement concluded with a consumer meets the transparency requirement laid down in those provisions solely because (i) it follows from the definition of the fee that it covers activities by the lender that are necessary for the conclusion of the agreement and that form part of the lender’s internal management and (ii) the amount of that fee is clearly set out in that agreement.
Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to meet the requirements laid down in those provisions, a clause relating to an ‘arrangement fee’ and included in a credit agreement concluded with a consumer must correspond to actual services or expenses reasonably forming part of activities which are performed by the lender in connection with, and which are necessary for, the conclusion of that agreement, there being no overlap either between the various fees or between the services for which those fees constitute remuneration. Such a clause cannot be regarded as unfair solely on the ground that it passes on to the consumer the costs of the financial institution’s business activity, provided that that clause does not require the consumer to pay a fee that is disproportionate in relation to (i) the expenses associated with the services concerned and (ii) the amount of the loan.
—
(1) OJ C, C/2024/4710.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4020/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—