7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/8

(Case C-520/21)

(2022/C 64/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.S.

Defendant: Bank M. SA

Question referred

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which, where a loan agreement entered into by and between a bank and a consumer is found to have been null and void from the outset because it contains unfair terms, the parties, in addition to the reimbursement of the sums paid in the performance of that agreement (the bank — loan principal, and the consumer — monthly payments, fees, commissions and insurance premiums) and statutory interest for late payment from the date of the demand for payment, may pursue any other claims (including remuneration, compensation, reimbursement of expenses or indexation of the amounts paid) on the grounds that:

1.the person making the monetary consideration was temporarily deprived of the use of his or her money, so that he or she has lost the opportunity to invest it and thus to make a profit;

2.the person making the monetary consideration incurred the costs of servicing the loan agreement and of transferring the money to the other party;

3.the recipient of the monetary consideration had the benefit of being able to temporarily use someone else’s money, including being able to invest it and thus to make a profit;

4.the recipient of the monetary consideration was temporarily able to use someone else’s money free of charge, which would have been impossible under market conditions;

5.the purchasing power of the money has decreased with time, which translates to a loss in real terms for the person making the monetary consideration;

6.the temporary provision of money may be treated as rendering a service for which the person making the monetary consideration has not received remuneration?

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