Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3375

30.6.2025

(Case C-324/23,

Myszak)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) - Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency - Legal action brought by the consumer seeking a declaration that the agreement is null and void - Application for the grant of protective measures suspending performance of the agreement - Directive 2014/59/EU - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Bank under resolution - Article 1(2) - Member States’ power to adopt rules that are stricter than or additional to those in that directive - National rule requiring applications for protective measures directed against institutions under ongoing resolution to be dismissed)

(C/2025/3375)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OF, EI, RI

Defendant: M.K., acting as liquidator of Getin Noble Bank S.A. (in liquidation)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness and in conjunction with Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a national court to dismiss a consumer’s application for protective measures, seeking suspension of the payment of the monthly instalments owed by the consumer under a loan agreement in respect of which he or she has brought an action for annulment on the ground that it contains unfair terms, pending a final decision on that action, solely because the bank with which that agreement was concluded is under resolution, within the meaning of Directive 2014/59, and in the context of that resolution the bridge institution tool was applied by creating another bank to which substantially all of the assets, rights and liabilities of the bank under resolution were transferred, but not the agreement concerned, which remains part of the assets of the residual institution, even though such protective measures would be necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of that final decision. In the context of its examination as to whether the grant of those protective measures is necessary, the national court must take account of the fact that the consumer has paid or risks paying an amount higher than would actually be due if that agreement were declared invalid.

—

(1) OJ C C/2024/619.

(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/2025/3375/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—