- 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-902/24, Herchoski: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2024 – RM and EM v Santander Bank Polska S.A.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0902
62024CN0902
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
EN
C series
—
C/2025/1876
7.4.2025
(Case C-902/24, Herchoski)
(C/2025/1876)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: RM and EM
Defendant: Santander Bank Polska S.A.
Questions referred
In the context of a mortgage loan agreement declared invalid in its entirety on the grounds that it contains unfair terms without which it cannot continue in existence, must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) and the principles of effectiveness, equivalence, proportionality and legal certainty be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national provisions according to which:
in an action brought by a consumer against a bank for the return of the equivalent of the payments made under a loan, the bank may raise an effective plea of set-off of its claim for repayment of the equivalent of the loan principal against the consumer’s claim;
the bank may effectively raise the above plea of set-off also in the alternative, while in principle its plea is that the loan agreement is valid and does not contain unfair contractual terms;
the bank may effectively demand that the consumer return the equivalent of the loan principal disbursed in the performance of an invalid agreement (as a result of which the bank’s claim becomes due), while in principle the bank’s plea is that the loan agreement is valid and does not contain unfair contractual terms;
the bank may set a two-week deadline for the return by the consumer of the equivalent of the entire loan principal (as a result of which the bank’s claim for the return of the equivalent of the entire loan principal becomes due);
the consumer is ordered to pay part of the legal costs to the extent that his or her action for payment was dismissed due to the plea of set-off raised by the bank being upheld?
—
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/2025/1876/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—