# C_2022284EN.01001201.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 12 January 2022 — TL, WE v Getin Noble Bank S.A.

(Case C-28/22)

(2022/C 284/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TL, WE

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) (1) be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, makes the start of the limitation period for the claims of the seller or supplier for restitution conditional on the occurrence of any of the following events:






  (a) | the consumer making a claim or raising a plea against the seller or supplier on the grounds that contractual clauses are abusive, or a court, acting of its own motion, advising that contractual clauses may be declared abusive; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) (1) be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, makes the start of the limitation period for the claims of the seller or supplier for restitution conditional on the occurrence of any of the following events:

(a)

the consumer making a claim or raising a plea against the seller or supplier on the grounds that contractual clauses are abusive, or a court, acting of its own motion, advising that contractual clauses may be declared abusive; or

| (b) | the consumer stating that he or she has been given comprehensive information on the effects (legal consequences) of the contract being no longer capable of continuing in existence, including information on the possible claims of the seller or supplier for restitution and the extent of those claims; or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the consumer stating that he or she has been given comprehensive information on the effects (legal consequences) of the contract being no longer capable of continuing in existence, including information on the possible claims of the seller or supplier for restitution and the extent of those claims; or

| (c) | the consumer’s knowledge (awareness) of the effects (legal consequences) of the contract being no longer capable of continuing in existence being established during court proceedings, or the court advising the consumer of such consequences; or |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the consumer’s knowledge (awareness) of the effects (legal consequences) of the contract being no longer capable of continuing in existence being established during court proceedings, or the court advising the consumer of such consequences; or

| (d) | the final court judgment resolving the dispute between the seller or supplier and the consumer being delivered? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the final court judgment resolving the dispute between the seller or supplier and the consumer being delivered?

| 2. | Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, places no obligation on the seller or supplier against whom a consumer has brought a claim related to the presence of abusive clauses in the contract to take steps of its own motion to establish whether the consumer is aware of the consequences of abusive clauses being eliminated or of the contract being no longer capable of continuing in existence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, places no obligation on the seller or supplier against whom a consumer has brought a claim related to the presence of abusive clauses in the contract to take steps of its own motion to establish whether the consumer is aware of the consequences of abusive clauses being eliminated or of the contract being no longer capable of continuing in existence?

| 3. | Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, provides that the limitation period for the consumer’s claims for restitution starts to run before the limitation period for the claims of the seller or supplier for restitution? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, provides that the limitation period for the consumer’s claims for restitution starts to run before the limitation period for the claims of the seller or supplier for restitution?

| 4. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, entitles the seller or supplier to make the repayment of the amounts received from the consumer conditional on the consumer at the same time offering to repay the amounts received from the seller or supplier or providing security for the repayment of those amounts, whereby the amount to be paid by the consumer does not include the sums which have become time-barred? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, entitles the seller or supplier to make the repayment of the amounts received from the consumer conditional on the consumer at the same time offering to repay the amounts received from the seller or supplier or providing security for the repayment of those amounts, whereby the amount to be paid by the consumer does not include the sums which have become time-barred?

| 5. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, does not entitle the consumer in whole or in part to interest for late payment in respect of the period from the receipt by the seller or supplier of the demand for restitution in the event that the seller or supplier exercises the right referred to in Question 4? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as precluding an interpretation of national law which, in the case where a contract is no longer capable of continuing in existence following the elimination of abusive clauses, does not entitle the consumer in whole or in part to interest for late payment in respect of the period from the receipt by the seller or supplier of the demand for restitution in the event that the seller or supplier exercises the right referred to in Question 4?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---