# C_2023261EN.01002601.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — I.S., K.S. v YYY. S.A.

(Case C-570/21, (1) YYY (concept of ‘consumer’))

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Dual-purpose contract - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Criteria)

(2023/C 261/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I.S., K.S.

Defendant: YYY. S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
  must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, covers a person who has concluded a loan contract intended for a purpose in part within and in part outside his or her trade, business or profession, together with a joint-borrower who did not act within his or her trade, business or profession, where the trade, business or professional purpose is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract.. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, covers a person who has concluded a loan contract intended for a purpose in part within and in part outside his or her trade, business or profession, together with a joint-borrower who did not act within his or her trade, business or profession, where the trade, business or professional purpose is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract..

| 2. | Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether a person falls within the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, and, specifically, whether the trade, business or professional purpose of a loan contract concluded by that person is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract, the referring court is required to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances surrounding that contract, both quantitative and qualitative, such as, in particular, the distribution of the borrowed capital between, on the one hand, a trade, business or profession and, on the other hand, a non-professional activity and, where there are several borrowers, the fact that only one of them is pursuing a professional purpose or that the lender made the grant of credit intended for consumer purposes conditional on a partial allocation of the amount borrowed to the repayment of debts connected with a trade, business or profession. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether a person falls within the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, and, specifically, whether the trade, business or professional purpose of a loan contract concluded by that person is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract, the referring court is required to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances surrounding that contract, both quantitative and qualitative, such as, in particular, the distribution of the borrowed capital between, on the one hand, a trade, business or profession and, on the other hand, a non-professional activity and, where there are several borrowers, the fact that only one of them is pursuing a professional purpose or that the lender made the grant of credit intended for consumer purposes conditional on a partial allocation of the amount borrowed to the repayment of debts connected with a trade, business or profession.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---