# C_2023164EN.01001301.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — M.B., U.B., M.B. v X S.A.

(Case C-6/22, (1) M.B. and Others (Effects of the invalidation of a contract))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 6 and 7 - Effects of a declaration that a term is unfair - Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency - Continued existence of the contract without unfair terms - Consumer’s wish to have the contract declared invalid - Application of the directive after the invalidation of the contract - Powers and obligations of the national court)

(2023/C 164/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.B., U.B., M.B.

Defendant: X S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier is declared invalid because one of its terms is unfair, it is for the Member States, by means of their national law, to make provision for the effects of that invalidation, in compliance with the protection granted to the consumer by that directive, in particular, by ensuring the restoration of the legal and factual situation that he or she would have been in if that unfair term had not existed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier is declared invalid because one of its terms is unfair, it is for the Member States, by means of their national law, to make provision for the effects of that invalidation, in compliance with the protection granted to the consumer by that directive, in particular, by ensuring the restoration of the legal and factual situation that he or she would have been in if that unfair term had not existed.

| 2. | Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as precluding a national court, first, from examining of its own motion, without any prerogative conferred on it by national law in that regard, the financial situation of a consumer who has sought the invalidation of the contract between him or her and a seller or supplier on account of the presence of an unfair term without which the contract cannot legally continue to exist, even if that invalidation is liable to expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences and, second, refusing to declare that invalidation where the consumer has expressly sought it, after being objectively and exhaustively informed of the legal consequences and the particularly unfavourable financial consequences which it may have for him or her. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as precluding a national court, first, from examining of its own motion, without any prerogative conferred on it by national law in that regard, the financial situation of a consumer who has sought the invalidation of the contract between him or her and a seller or supplier on account of the presence of an unfair term without which the contract cannot legally continue to exist, even if that invalidation is liable to expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences and, second, refusing to declare that invalidation where the consumer has expressly sought it, after being objectively and exhaustively informed of the legal consequences and the particularly unfavourable financial consequences which it may have for him or her.

| 3. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as precluding a national court, after it has found that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, from being able to fill gaps resulting from the removal of the unfair term contained therein by the application of a provision of national law which cannot be characterised as a supplementary provision. However, it is for the national court, taking account of its domestic law as a whole, to take all the measures necessary to protect the consumer from the particularly unfavourable consequences which annulment of the contract might entail for him or her. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as precluding a national court, after it has found that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, from being able to fill gaps resulting from the removal of the unfair term contained therein by the application of a provision of national law which cannot be characterised as a supplementary provision. However, it is for the national court, taking account of its domestic law as a whole, to take all the measures necessary to protect the consumer from the particularly unfavourable consequences which annulment of the contract might entail for him or her.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---