Provisional text

delivered on 30 April 2025 (1)

Case C‑80/24

Zwrotybankowe.pl sp. z o.o.

Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A.

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Warsaw District Court, Warsaw City Centre, Poland))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2008/48/EC – Credit agreements for consumers – Article 22(2) – Assignment of the consumer’s claim against a banking institution – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) – Standing of the assignee – Review by the national court of its own motion of the unfairness of the clauses of the assignment agreement )

I.Introduction

1.The present case invites the Court to explore further the limitations of the power of the national courts to examine of their own motion the unfairness of contractual terms. Two important judgments on that matter, Lintner (2) and Tuk Tuk Travel, (3) demonstrate that the ex officio powers of the courts in consumer law are firmly ‘anchored’ to the ambit of the dispute as defined by the parties. (4) As eloquently put in the legal literature, the ambit of the dispute defines the ‘insurmountable boundaries’ (5) for the court, even if the ‘demarcation lines’ (6) of those boundaries in the field of European consumer law can be ‘broadly traced’.

2.The issue raised, more particularly, in the present case, concerns the scope of the powers of national courts to examine of their own motion the unfairness of terms of an assignment agreement between a consumer and an assignee company, the assignment agreement being the basis of the legal standing of that assignee. The difficulty lies in the fact that the dispute before the national court does not concern the assignment agreement but rather a consumer credit agreement, and the fact that the consumer is not a party to the relevant proceedings.

3.In accordance with the Court’s request, my Opinion will concentrate on the second question referred for a preliminary ruling.

II.Legal framework

A.European Union law

1.Directive 93/13/EEC

4.Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) provides:

‘Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms.’

5.Article 7(1) of that directive is worded as follows:

‘Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers.’

2.Directive 2008/48/EC

6.Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66), entitled ‘Harmonisation and imperative nature of this Directive’, provides in paragraph 2:

‘Member States shall ensure that consumers may not waive the rights conferred on them by the provisions of national law implementing or corresponding to this Directive.’

B.Polish law

7.Article 45(1) of the ustawa z dnia 12 maja 2011 r. o kredycie konsumenckim (Law of 12 May 2011 on Consumer Credit) (consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2023, item 1028, as amended) (‘the Law on Consumer Credit’) provides:

‘In the event of failure by the creditor to comply with Article 29(1), Article 30(1)(1) to (8), (10), (11), (14) to (17), Articles 31 to 33, Article 33a and Articles 36a to 36c, the consumer shall, after submitting a written statement to the creditor, repay the credit, without interest and any other credit costs due to the creditor, within the time limit and in the manner laid down in the agreement.’

8.Under Article 509(1) of the Kodeks cywilny (Civil Code):

‘A creditor may, without the consent of the debtor, assign (transfer) a claim to a third party, save where this would be contrary to the law, a contractual stipulation or a characteristic of the obligation.’

III.Succinct presentation of the dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

9.On 3 October 2023, the applicant in the case in the main proceedings, Zwrotybankowe.pl spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (Zwrotybankowe.pl limited liability company) (‘Zwrotybankowe.pl’) brought an action against the defendant Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski spółka akcyjna (Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski joint-stock company) (‘PKO Bank’), claiming the amount of 4 537.45 zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 1 050) together with statutory interest for late payment and legal costs.

10.In support of its claim, Zwrotybankowe.pl indicated that a consumer had assigned to Zwrotybankowe.pl the right to claim against PKO Bank for all amounts owed to that consumer in connection with settlements arising from the application of the ‘free-credit’ sanction. That sanction, the referring court explains, is laid down in Article 45(1) of the Law on Consumer Credit, (7) which provides, in essence, that, in the event of breach of information obligations by the creditor in the consumer credit agreement, the consumer may make a statement to the creditor and then repay only the principal amount of the loan without interest and other credit costs.

11.Zwrotybankowe.pl further claimed that the right to reimbursement stems from the credit agreement the consumer had concluded with PKO Bank on 13 September 2018 (‘the credit agreement’). Zwrotybankowe.pl alleges, more specifically, that PKO Bank failed to fulfil the information obligations required by Article 30(1) of the Law on Consumer Credit. (8)

12.PKO Bank requested that the action be dismissed in its entirety, arguing that it did not breach its information obligations towards the consumer, and that there was no effective assignment of the claim to Zwrotybankowe.pl, since the nature of the obligation precluded its being assigned to a third party.

13.The referring court states that the national file includes the assignment agreement concluded on 16 January 2023 between Zwrotybankowe.pl and the consumer (‘the assignment agreement’). Under that agreement, the consumer assigned to Zwrotybankowe.pl all existing and future pecuniary claims against PKO Bank arising from the application of the ‘free–credit’ sanction and from the effects of unfair or invalid contractual clauses. The assignment agreement further stipulated that Zwrotybankowe.pl was entitled to 50% of the amount of the main claim recovered from PKO Bank. In addition, Zwrotybankowe.pl was entitled to all the legal costs awarded, including the costs of legal representation.

14.The referring court seeks, in the first place, guidance as to the interpretation of Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/48, which precludes consumers from waiving the rights conferred on them by the provisions of national law implementing that directive. More specifically, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether that provision must be interpreted as precluding the assignment of a consumer’s rights to a third party which, as in the present case, will assert those rights in its own name and subsequently collect a remuneration of 50% of the amount obtained before returning the remaining 50% to the consumer.

15.In that regard, the referring court considers that a purposive interpretation of Directive 2008/48, aimed at protecting consumers from unfair terms in credit agreements, weighs in favour of precluding the assignment of claims.

16.In the second place, the referring court seeks guidance as to the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 in the context of the requirement for national courts to examine of their own motion the unfairness of contractual terms.

17.In that regard, the referring court points out that the requirement for a national court to examine of its own motion the unfairness of contractual terms is based on the premiss that the consumer is a party to the proceedings and that the court’s intervention compensates for the imbalance which exists between the consumer and the seller or supplier. However, the case in the main proceedings is different in that the consumer is not a party to the dispute – rather, the assignee of the claim is – and the case concerns not the assignment agreement but rather the credit agreement. Whilst the referring court has no doubts about its jurisdiction to examine the possible unfair nature of the terms of the credit agreement, it does have doubts about its obligation and jurisdiction to examine the unfair nature of the provisions of an assignment agreement that forms the basis of the applicant’s standing in the case in the main proceedings.

18.Its doubts relate in particular to the fact that, in principle, a ruling by the court that the assignment agreement is not binding (or is not binding in full) will not bind the court in any potential litigation between the consumer and the entity to which the claim was assigned. Moreover, a finding that the assignment agreement is unfair, to the extent that it could result in its annulment, may have negative consequences for the consumer. Indeed, it could lead to the dismissal of the action in the main proceedings due to the lack of legal standing of the applicant, to which the claim was assigned. This may result in the consumer failing to obtain even the part of the claim to which he or she is entitled under the assignment agreement.

19.An additional issue raised by the referring court is that a review of the unfair nature of the terms of the assignment agreement would have to be carried out in the consumer’s absence and without offering the consumer the opportunity to be informed of the legal consequences potentially arising from the annulment of the assignment agreement.

20.In those circumstances, the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Warsaw District Court, Warsaw City Centre, Poland) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

(1)‘(1) Must Article 22(2) of Directive [2008/48] be interpreted as precluding national legislation that allows a consumer to assign the rights conferred on him or her by the national legislation implementing the directive to a third party who is not a consumer?

(2)Must [Article] 6(1) and [Article] 7(1) of …Directive [93/13] be interpreted as meaning that [a] court’s obligation to examine of its own motion the unfairness of a contractual term also applies to a term in a claim assignment agreement concluded between a consumer and a third party, if in the proceedings before the court the third party relies on that agreement as the basis for its standing to bring an action against the seller or supplier [which] was the consumer’s original counterparty?’

21.Written observations were submitted by the parties to the main proceedings, the Polish Government and the European Commission.

IV.Analysis

22.By its second question, which is the subject of the present Opinion, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is required to examine of its own motion the unfairness of terms of an assignment agreement concluded between a consumer and a commercial company which is the assignee of the consumer’s claim against a seller or supplier with whom the consumer had concluded a credit agreement, in circumstances in which, on the one hand, the dispute pending before the national court does not concern that assignment agreement and, on the other hand, the commercial company which is the assignee of the consumer’s claim relies on that assignment agreement as the basis for its standing to bring an action against the seller or supplier who was the consumer’s original counterparty.

23.It is apparent from the order for reference that the dispute in the main proceedings is between Zwrotybankowe.pl and PKO Bank. That dispute relates to the credit agreement concluded by PKO Bank with the consumer. Zwrotybankowe.pl claims that the obligation to reimburse the amounts owed to that consumer arises from the application of the ‘free-credit’ sanction due to an alleged breach of the bank’s obligation to provide information when concluding the credit agreement. (9) The legal standing of Zwrotybankowe.pl stems from the assignment agreement concluded between the consumer and Zwrotybankowe.pl, by which the consumer transferred to the assignee all pecuniary claims arising from the consumer credit agreement while Zwrotybankowe.pl was entitled to 50% of the amount of the principal claim to be recovered from PKO Bank. (10)

24.It is also apparent from the order for reference that the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings is the credit agreement; it is not the examination of the individual terms of the assignment agreement in the light of Directive 93/13. It is in that context that the referring court asks whether it is required to examine of its own motion the unfairness of terms of the assignment agreement which is not the subject matter of the dispute before that court, but is rather the basis for the legal standing of Zwrotybankowe.pl.

1.The referring court’s examination of its own motion of the unfairness of a clause of the assignment agreement

25.According to the Court’s settled case-law, the system of protection introduced by Directive 93/13 is based on the idea that the consumer is in a weak position vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his or her bargaining power and his or her level of knowledge. (11)

26.As regards that weaker position, Article 6(1) of that directive provides that unfair terms are not binding on consumers. It is a mandatory provision which aims to replace the formal balance which the contract establishes between the rights and obligations of the parties with an effective balance which re-establishes equality between them. (12)

27.In that context, the Court has held on several occasions that the national court is required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term falling within the scope of Directive 93/13 is unfair, and, in doing so, compensate for the imbalance which exists between the consumer and the seller or supplier, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. (13)

28.The obligatory examination that the national court hearing the case must carry out of its own motion pursuant to Directive 93/13 is limited, first, to contractual terms the unfair nature of which can be established on the basis of the elements of law and fact available in the file before that national court. (14)

29.Secondly, such an examination must respect the limitations of the subject matter of the dispute, understood as being the result that a party pursues by his or her claims, in the light of the heads of claim and pleas in law put forward to that end. (15)

30.To begin with, although the consumer protection intended by Directive 93/13 requires a positive intervention on the part of the national court hearing the case, it is nonetheless necessary, in order for that protection to be granted, for one of the parties to the contract concerned to have brought court proceedings. (16) Those proceedings must have the contract concerned as their object. (17)

32.Next, the Court has ruled that the effectiveness of the protection that the national court is deemed to grant to the consumer, pursuant to Directive 93/13, by intervention of its own motion, cannot go so far as to ignore or exceed the limitations of the subject matter of the dispute as defined by the parties by their claims, in the light of the pleas they have put forward. Thus the national court is not required to extend that dispute beyond the forms of order sought and the pleas in law submitted to it. (18)

33.The Court has further ruled that an action between two sellers or suppliers is not characterised by the same imbalance that is present in an action between the consumer and its seller or supplier, which is the other party to the contract. (19)

34.In the case in the main proceedings, as already pointed out above, the consumer is not a party. The subject matter of the dispute, as defined by the parties by their claims and pleas, concerns the credit agreement. The assignment agreement between the assignee company and the consumer is not the subject matter of the action brought before the national court.

35.In such circumstances, unlike the situation referred to in the case-law cited in point 27 of the present Opinion, it is neither required nor necessary, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the system of consumer protection intended by Directive 93/13, for a national court hearing a dispute between two sellers or suppliers, such as a company which is the assignee of the rights of a consumer and the seller or supplier which is the other party to the contract with that consumer, to examine of its own motion whether a clause in the assignment agreement concluded by that consumer with the company to which the latter assigned his or her rights is unfair.

36.A different solution would disregard the ‘constitutive elements’ (20) of a civil suit, namely the parties to the dispute and the subject matter thereof. As the case-law of the Court referred to in point 31 above clearly demonstrates, the exceptional powers of national courts in the field of consumer litigation must still remain within the ambit of the civil dispute.

37.The limitations on the court’s intervention of its own motion are without prejudice to the right of the consumer to bring proceedings in order to challenge the assignment agreement. In the context of any such future dispute, the national court could then exercise its powers to examine of its own motion any unfair terms contained therein.

38.The referring court raises the separate issue of whether it is required to examine the unfairness of a clause or clauses of the assignment agreement under Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, as part of its examination of the conditions of admissibility of the legal action brought before it, in so far as the assignment agreement affects the standing of the applicant in the main proceedings.

39.It must be borne in mind that, under Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, Member States must lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier are not to be binding on the consumer. (21)

40.In addition, Directive 93/13, as is apparent from Article 7(1) in conjunction with the twenty-fourth recital of that directive, obliges the Member States to provide for adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers. (22)

41.While the Court has already defined, on several occasions and taking into account the requirements of Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, the way in which national courts must ensure that the rights which consumers derive from that directive are protected, the fact remains that, in principle, EU law does not harmonise the procedures applicable to examining whether a contractual term is unfair. Those procedures accordingly fall within the domestic legal system of the Member States, by virtue of the principle of procedural autonomy of those States; nevertheless, those procedures must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness). (23)

42.In those circumstances, it is necessary to determine whether the aforementioned provisions, read in conjunction with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, require the national court to review of its own motion whether a clause in the assignment agreement is unfair as a prerequisite for the determination of the legal standing of the applicant in the main proceedings.

43.First, as regards the principle of equivalence, it is for the national court to determine, in the light of the detailed procedural rules applicable in national law, whether that principle is observed, having regard to the subject matter, cause of action and essential elements of the actions concerned. (24)

44.In that regard, the Court has ruled that Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy. (25)

45.It follows that, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, where, under domestic law, the national court has the discretion or the obligation to assess of its own motion whether the terms of an assignment agreement on which the applicant relies in order to establish his or her legal standing is contrary to national rules of public policy, it must also have the discretion or the obligation to assess of its own motion whether those terms are contrary to Article 6 of Directive 93/13, where it has the legal and factual information necessary for that purpose.

46.In the present case, the request for a preliminary ruling does not contain any information as to whether the court hearing an action brought by a company to which the consumer has assigned his or her claim may, or even must, under Polish law, examine of its own motion whether a clause, such as the clause at issue pertaining to the remuneration of the assignee, is contrary to national rules of public policy. In accordance with the case-law referred to in the previous point of the present Opinion, it is for the referring court to verify that aspect in order to determine whether it may, or even must, under the principle of equivalence, examine of its own motion whether the clause at issue is unfair. (26)

47.Secondly, as regards the principle of effectiveness, the Court has held that every case in which the question arises whether a national procedural provision makes the application of EU law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, and, where relevant, the principles which lie at the basis of the national legal system, such as the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of proceedings. (27)

48.As regards the action in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the order for reference that the examination of the assignment agreement by the national court of its own motion is liable to give rise to negative consequences for the consumer and run counter to the consumer’s autonomy to rely or not on the protections afforded by Directive 93/13. More particularly, the referring court points out that the finding of unfairness of terms of the assignment agreement could lead to its being held to be null and void. The consequence of that nullity would be the rejection of the claim in the main proceedings due to lack of standing of Zwrotybankowe.pl, thereby depriving the consumer from obtaining even part of the claim.

49.As a preliminary observation, it should be noted that, as is apparent from the order for reference, any negative consequences of a finding of unfairness of terms of the assignment agreement are based on the premiss made by the national court that such a finding would lead to the nullity of that agreement.

50.In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the final part of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, ‘the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms’. (28)

51.It should be noted that the purpose of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, in particular Article 6(1) in fine, is not to annul all contracts containing unfair terms, but to replace the formal balance which the contract establishes between the rights and obligations of the parties with an effective balance capable of restoring equality between them, it being noted that the contract in question must, in principle, continue to exist without any modification other than that resulting from the removal of the unfair terms. Provided that the latter condition is satisfied, the contract at issue may, under Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, be maintained in so far as, in accordance with the rules of national law, such a continuation of the contract without the unfair terms is legally possible, which must be verified according to an objective approach. (29)

52.It is on the basis of that objective approach and in accordance with the rules of national law that the referring court must determine whether the continuity of the assignment agreement would be legally possible after a finding of unfairness of one or more of its terms.

53.As the referring court explains, if it concludes, following an examination carried out of its own motion, that one or more of the contractual terms is unfair and that the assignment agreement is null and void, such outcome is liable to expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences. In that regard, it is important to bear in mind that the power of the national courts to examine potentially unfair terms of their own motion is justified by the need to compensate for the imbalance which exists between the consumer and the seller. (30) It would be contrary to that objective if that power were to have the adverse effect of penalising the consumer.

54.Moreover, the Court has made it clear, in relation to the national court’s obligation to remove, if necessary of its own motion, unfair terms pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, that that court is not required to exclude the possibility that the term in question may be applicable if the consumer, after having been informed of it by the court, does not intend to assert its unfair or non-binding status, thus giving his or her free and informed consent to the term in question. (31)

55.Thus, Directive 93/13 does not go as far as making the system of protection against the use of unfair terms by suppliers or sellers, a system which it introduced for the benefit of consumers, mandatory. Accordingly, where the consumer prefers not to rely on it, that system of protection is not applied. (32)

56.In the case in the main proceedings, as already noted above, the consumer is not a party and the assignment agreement is not the subject matter of the dispute. Under the assignment agreement, Zwrotybankowe.pl, which is the assignee, is also the supplier or seller which sets the contractual terms of the assignment agreement. Given that the interests of the two parties to the assignment agreement are opposed, it is not possible to substitute the views of the consumer as to the possible unfairness of the terms of the assignment agreement with the views of the assignee company. (33)

57.The Commission suggested in its written submissions that the national court may examine whether national law provides for the possibility of scrutinising the terms of the assignment agreement as part of the main proceedings, or in a distinct procedure, which may entail suspension of the main proceedings. Zwrotybankowe.pl submitted that, in proceedings such as the one before the referring court, the consumers are summoned as witnesses. It submits that, in such a context, the courts are able to determine whether the consumers are fully aware of the subject matter of the assignment and its implications.

58.It is for the referring court to examine the possibilities national legislation provides for third parties to be notified of the pending proceedings and whether, in that context, the national court may inform the consumer of the possible unfairness of terms contained in the assignment agreement.

59.However, the application of any possibilities under national procedural law for the consumer to be notified of the pending proceedings and for the national court to inform the consumer of the possible unfairness of terms contained in the assignment agreement must not result in unfavourable consequences for the consumer. Indeed, as I pointed out, in essence, above, (34) the rationale underlying the recognition of the courts’ powers to examine unfair terms of their own motion is consumer protection. More specifically, the consumer should not be obliged to participate in legal proceedings and his or her autonomy in relation to the assignment agreement should be observed. Nor should the consumer be prevented from bringing legal proceedings in the future against the assignee company seeking to have the terms of the assignment agreement declared unfair.

60.In view of all of the above, I take the view that Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to examine of its own motion the unfairness of terms of an assignment agreement concluded between a consumer and a commercial company which is the assignee of the consumer’s claim against a seller or supplier with whom the consumer had concluded a credit agreement, in circumstances in which, on the one hand, the dispute pending before the national court does not concern that assignment agreement and, on the other hand, the commercial company which is the assignee of the consumer’s claim relies on that assignment agreement as the basis for its standing to bring an action against the seller or supplier who was the consumer’s original counterparty. The application of any possibilities under national procedural law for the consumer to be notified of the pending proceedings and for the national court to inform the consumer of the possible unfairness of terms contained in the assignment agreement must not result in unfavourable consequences for the consumer.

V.Conclusion

60.In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court of Justice answer the second question referred by the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Warsaw District Court, Warsaw City Centre, Poland) as follows:

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to examine of its own motion the unfairness of terms of an assignment agreement concluded between a consumer and a commercial company which is the assignee of the consumer’s claim against a seller or supplier with whom the consumer had concluded a credit agreement, in circumstances in which, on the one hand, the dispute pending before the national court does not concern that assignment agreement and, on the other hand, the commercial company which is the assignee of the consumer’s claim relies on that assignment agreement as the basis for its standing to bring an action against the seller or supplier who was the consumer’s original counterparty. The application of any possibilities under national procedural law for the consumer to be notified of the pending proceedings and for the national court to inform the consumer of the possible unfairness of terms contained in the assignment agreement must not result in unfavourable consequences for the consumer.

—

1 Original language: English.

2 Judgment of 11 March 2020, Lintner (C‑511/17, EU:C:2020:188).

3 Judgment of 14 September 2023, Tuk Tuk Travel (C‑83/22, EU:C:2023:664).

4 Poissonnier, G., ‘L’office du juge en droit de la consommation est lié à l’objet du litige’, Recueil Dalloz, 2020, p. 1394, according to whom the judgment of 11 March 2020, Lintner (C‑511/17, EU:C:2020:188), ‘marque incontestablement une volonté d’ancrer le relevé d’office dans l’objet du litige’.

5 Biardeaud, G. et Flores, P., Crédit à la consommation, protection du consommateur, Delmas, 2012, p. 299 (‘frontière infranchissable’).

6 Poissonnier, G., footnote 4, op. cit., observing that ‘si le juge ne doit pas franchir la ligne de démarcation marquant les contours de l’objet du litige, il lui appartient de retenir un tracé large et flexible de la ligne en question’.

7 See point 7 above.

8 That provision implements, essentially, Article 10 of Directive 2008/48, which sets out the information to be included in credit agreements.

9 See point 10 above. In its written submissions, Zwrotybankowe.pl states that the consumer as well as, ‘by excessive precaution’, Zwrotybankowe.pl, have submitted the written statement to the creditor concerning repayment of the credit without interest or any other costs, as required by the relevant legislation.

10See point 13 above.

11Judgments of 27 June 2000, Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores (C‑240/98 to C‑244/98, EU:C:2000:346, paragraph 25), and of 17 May 2022, SPV Project 1503 and Others (C‑693/19 and C‑831/19, EU:C:2022:395, paragraph 51).

12Judgments of 26 October 2006, Mostaza Claro (C‑168/05, EU:C:2006:675, paragraph 36), and of 17 May 2022, SPV Project 1503 and Others (C‑693/19 and C‑831/19, EU:C:2022:395, paragraph 52).

13Judgment of 17 May 2022, SPV Project 1503 and Others (C‑693/19 and C‑831/19, EU:C:2022:395, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

14See, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2020, Lintner (C‑511/17, EU:C:2020:188, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

15Ibid., paragraph 28.

16Ibid., paragraph 29.

17See, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2023, Tuk Tuk Travel (C‑83/22, EU:C:2023:664, paragraph 54).

18See, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2020, Lintner (C‑511/17, EU:C:2020:188, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).

19See, to that effect, judgment of 11 April 2024, Air Europa Líneas Aéreas (C‑173/23, EU:C:2024:295, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).

20See Cadiet, L., Normand, J. and Amrani-Mekki, S., Théorie générale du procès, 3rd ed., Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2020, p. 671.

21Judgment of 17 May 2022, Unicaja Banco (C‑869/19, EU:C:2022:397, paragraph 20).

22Ibid., paragraph 21.

23Judgment of 11 April 2024, Air Europa Líneas Aéreas (C‑173/23, EU:C:2024:295, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

24Ibid., paragraph 33.

25Ibid., paragraph 34.

26This means that if, for instance, the national court has under national law the power to conduct a review of the formal requirements of the assignment agreement conferring standing on the assignee, the principle of equivalence will require a review of the same nature, as opposed to a review of the legality of the terms of the assignment agreement.

27Judgment of 17 May 2022, SPV Project 1503 and Others (C‑693/19 and C‑831/19, EU:C:2022:395, paragraph 60).

28Judgment of 29 April 2021, Bank BPH (C‑19/20, EU:C:2021:341, paragraph 53).

29Judgment of 8 September 2022, D.B.P. and Others (Mortgage loans denominated in foreign currency) (C‑80/21 to C‑82/21, EU:C:2022:646, paragraph 66).

30See point 27 above.

31Judgment of 8 September 2022, D.B.P. and Others (Mortgage loans denominated in foreign currency) (C‑80/21 to C‑82/21, EU:C:2022:646, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited).

32Judgment of 3 October 2019, Dziubak (C‑260/18, EU:C:2019:819, paragraph 54).

33This distinguishes the case in the main proceedings from the situation in the judgment of 11 April 2024, Air Europa Líneas Aéreas (C‑173/23, EU:C:2024:295, paragraphs 46 et seq.). Indeed, in that case, the issue of the examination of the unfairness of the contractual terms concerned not the assignment agreement between the consumer and the commercial company which was the assignee of the consumer’s claim but rather the contract of carriage concluded between the consumer and a seller or supplier (an airline company) which was the consumer’s original counterparty. That contract was the subject matter of the dispute between the commercial company assignee of the rights of the consumer and the seller or supplier (the airline company). In those circumstances it was held that the commercial company which is the assignee of the consumer’s rights must be given the opportunity to set out its views on the issue of the unfairness of a clause of the contract and challenge those of the other party.

34Point 52 above.