Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/127

13.1.2025

(Case C-646/22,

Compass Banca)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 2(j), Articles 5, 8 and 9 - Concept of ‘average consumer’ - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Concept of ‘aggressive commercial practice’ - Cross-selling of a personal loan and an insurance product not related to that loan - Orientation of the information provided to the consumer - Concept of ‘framing’ - Commercial practice consisting of simultaneously proposing to a consumer an offer for a personal loan and an offer for an insurance product not related to that loan - No cooling-off period between the signature of the loan contract and that of the insurance policy contract - Directive (EU) 2016/97 - Article 24)

(C/2025/127)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compass Banca SpA

Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Intervening parties: Metlife Europe Dac, Metlife Europe Insurance Dac, Europ Assistance Italia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’)

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘average consumer’, within the meaning of that directive, must be defined by reference to a consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. Such a definition does not, however, exclude the possibility that an individual’s decision-making capacity may be impaired by constraints, such as cognitive biases.

Article 2(j), Article 5(2) and (5) and Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29

must be interpreted as meaning that the commercial practice consisting in simultaneously proposing to the consumer an offer for a personal loan and an offer for an insurance product not related to that loan, does not constitute either a commercial practice that is in all circumstances aggressive or even a commercial practice in all circumstances regarded as unfair, within the meaning of that directive.

must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure which allows a national authority, once it has been established that the commercial practice adopted by a particular trader is ‘aggressive’ or, more generally, ‘unfair’, to require that trader to grant the consumer a reasonable cooling-off period between the dates on which the insurance contract and the loan contract are signed, unless there are other means less prejudicial to the freedom to conduct a business which are equally effective to put an end to the ‘aggressive’ or, more generally, ‘unfair’ nature of that practice.

Article 24(3) of Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution

must be interpreted as not precluding a national authority from requiring a trader, whose commercial practice of framing is regarded as ‘aggressive’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29, or, more generally, as ‘unfair’ within the meaning of Article 5(2) of that directive, in order to put an end to that practice, to grant the consumer a reasonable cooling-off period between the dates on which the contracts concerned are signed.

—

Language of the case: Italian

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/127/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—