Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/11

(Case C-42/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Article 1, Article 3(m), Article 10(1) and (2), Article 22(1) and Article 23 - Interpretation of the expressions ‘on paper’ and ‘on another durable medium’ - Contract referring to another document - Requirement for the agreement to be in ‘written form’ within the meaning of national law - Indication of information required by reference to objective criteria - Information to be included in a fixed-term credit agreement - Effect of failure to include mandatory information - Proportionality))

(2017/C 006/12)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Home Credit Slovakia, a.s.

Defendant: Klára Bíróová

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 10(1) and (2) 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, read in conjunction with Article 3(m), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—a credit agreement need not necessarily be drawn up in a single document, but all the information referred to in Article 10(2) of the directive must be set out on paper or on another durable medium;

—it does not preclude a Member State from providing in its national legislation, first, that a credit agreement falling within the scope of Directive 2008/48 which is drawn up on paper must be signed by the parties and, second, that the requirement that the agreement be signed applies to all the details of that agreement referred to in Article 10(2) of that directive.

2.Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a credit agreement need not indicate the specific date on which every payment to be made by the consumer falls due, provided that the terms of the agreement allow the consumer to ascertain the dates of those payments without difficulty and with certainty.

3.Article 10(2)(h) and (i) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a fixed-term credit agreement, providing for amortisation of the capital in consecutive instalments, need not state, in the form of an amortisation table, the part of each instalment that will be allocated to repayment of capital. Those provisions, read in conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, preclude a Member State from imposing such an obligation under national law.

4.Article 23 of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from providing, under national law, that, where a credit agreement does not include all the information required under Article 10(2) of the directive, the agreement is deemed to be interest-free and free of charges, provided that the information covers matters which, if not included, may compromise the ability of the consumer to assess the extent of his liability.

* Language of the case: Slovak.

OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.