Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2024/1659

(Case C-531/22, (1) Getin Noble Bank and Others (Review by a national court of its own motion of unfair contractual terms))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) - Article 6(1) - Article 7(1) - Article 8 - Enforcement order which has acquired the force of res judicata - Power of the court to assess of its own motion whether a term is unfair when supervising enforcement proceedings - National register of standard business terms which are held to be unlawful - Terms which are linguistically different from those contained in that register, but which have the same meaning and the same effect)

(C/2024/1659)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Creditors: Getin Noble Bank S.A., TF, C2, PI

Debtor: TL

Other parties to the proceedings: EOS, Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, MG, Komornik Sądowy AC

Operative part of the judgment

1.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 they preclude national legislation which provides that a national court may not carry out, of its own motion, a review of the unfairness of terms contained in an agreement concluded with the consumer and attach consequences thereto where it is supervising enforcement proceedings based on a decision issuing a final order for payment which is res judicata:

—if that legislation does not provide for such a review when the order for payment is issued or

—where such an assessment is provided for only when an objection is lodged against the order for payment concerned, if there is a significant risk that the consumer concerned will not lodge the objection required, either because of the particularly short period provided for that purpose, or in view of the costs which legal proceedings would entail in relation to the amount of the disputed debt, or because the national legislation does not lay down the obligation that all the information must be communicated to that consumer which is necessary to enable that consumer to determine the extent of his or her rights.

2.Article 3(1), Article 6(1), Article 7(1) and Article 8 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national case-law according to which the entry of a contractual term in the national register of unlawful terms renders that term unfair in any proceedings involving a consumer, including in respect of a seller or supplier other than that against which proceedings for entry of that unfair term in the register of unlawful terms were under way and in respect of a term which is not linguistically identical to the term which has been registered, but which has the same meaning and produces the same effect vis-à-vis the consumer concerned.

* Language of the case: Polish.

(1) OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1659/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)