# C_2020054EN.01004302.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/43

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli in Warsaw (Poland) lodged on 10 December 2019 — E. Sp. z o.o. v K.S.

(Case C-904/19)

(2020/C 54/48)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli in Warsaw

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E. Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: K.S.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1)... and the recitals thereof [the twentieth and twenty-fourth, under which] contracts should be drafted in plain, intelligible language, the consumer should actually be given an opportunity to examine all the terms and, if in doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail [and] the courts or administrative authorities of the Member States must have at their disposal adequate and effective means of preventing the continued application of unfair terms in consumer contracts, in conjunction with 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 (2)..., and recital 31 thereof, be interpreted as precluding Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, construed in such a way that it permits the delivery of a default judgment in a case ... concerning the repayment of consumer credit ... including where the applicant has failed to submit ... the consumer credit agreement ..., and consequently no examination of the agreement was carried out from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained in the agreement and no checks were made on whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law, and at the same time requires, when delivering a default judgment, that the applicant’s statement of facts alone be relied on, with no analysis of the evidence from the point of view of ‘reasonable doubts’ within the meaning of that provision?
  In the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2015, ERSTE Bank Hungary (C-32/14, EU:C:2015:637, paragraph 62); of 10 September 2014, Kušionová [Or. 1] (C-34/13, EU:C:2014:2189, paragraph 56); and of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (C-40/08, EU:C:2009:615, paragraph 47), is it also permissible to interpret Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure as meaning that a default judgment may be delivered in a case [concerning a consumer credit agreement] ... in which the applicant failed to attach the agreement to the application, and consequently with no examination of the agreement from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained therein, and also no checks on whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law, relying solely on the applicant’s statement of facts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1)... and the recitals thereof [the twentieth and twenty-fourth, under which] contracts should be drafted in plain, intelligible language, the consumer should actually be given an opportunity to examine all the terms and, if in doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail [and] the courts or administrative authorities of the Member States must have at their disposal adequate and effective means of preventing the continued application of unfair terms in consumer contracts, in conjunction with 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 (2)..., and recital 31 thereof, be interpreted as precluding Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, construed in such a way that it permits the delivery of a default judgment in a case ... concerning the repayment of consumer credit ... including where the applicant has failed to submit ... the consumer credit agreement ..., and consequently no examination of the agreement was carried out from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained in the agreement and no checks were made on whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law, and at the same time requires, when delivering a default judgment, that the applicant’s statement of facts alone be relied on, with no analysis of the evidence from the point of view of ‘reasonable doubts’ within the meaning of that provision?

In the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2015, ERSTE Bank Hungary (C-32/14, EU:C:2015:637, paragraph 62); of 10 September 2014, Kušionová [Or. 1] (C-34/13, EU:C:2014:2189, paragraph 56); and of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (C-40/08, EU:C:2009:615, paragraph 47), is it also permissible to interpret Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure as meaning that a default judgment may be delivered in a case [concerning a consumer credit agreement] ... in which the applicant failed to attach the agreement to the application, and consequently with no examination of the agreement from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained therein, and also no checks on whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law, relying solely on the applicant’s statement of facts?

| 2. | Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts ... and the recitals thereof [the twentieth and twenty-fourth, under which] contracts should be drafted in plain, intelligible language, the consumer should actually be given an opportunity to examine all the terms and, if in doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail [and] the courts or administrative authorities of the Member States must have at their disposal adequate and effective means of preventing the continued application of unfair terms in consumer contracts, in conjunction with 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 ..., and recital 31 thereof, be interpreted as precluding Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, construed in such a way that it prevents a national court from examining an agreement ... on consumer credit attached by the applicant ... from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained therein and examining whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law and at the same time requires, when delivering a default judgment, that the applicant’s statement of facts alone be relied on, with no analysis of the evidence from the point of view of ‘reasonable doubt’ within the meaning of that provision?
  In the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2015, ERSTE Bank Hungary (C-32/14, EU:C:2015:637, paragraph 62); of 10 September 2014, Kušionová (C-34/13, EU:C:2014:2189, paragraph 56); and of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (C–40/08, EU:C:2009:615, paragraph 47), is it possibly also permissible to interpret Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure as meaning that a default judgment may be delivered in a case [concerning a consumer credit agreement] ... with no examination of the agreement submitted by the applicant and attached to the application from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained therein, and also no checks on whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law, relying solely on the applicant’s statement of facts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts ... and the recitals thereof [the twentieth and twenty-fourth, under which] contracts should be drafted in plain, intelligible language, the consumer should actually be given an opportunity to examine all the terms and, if in doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail [and] the courts or administrative authorities of the Member States must have at their disposal adequate and effective means of preventing the continued application of unfair terms in consumer contracts, in conjunction with 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 ..., and recital 31 thereof, be interpreted as precluding Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, construed in such a way that it prevents a national court from examining an agreement ... on consumer credit attached by the applicant ... from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained therein and examining whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law and at the same time requires, when delivering a default judgment, that the applicant’s statement of facts alone be relied on, with no analysis of the evidence from the point of view of ‘reasonable doubt’ within the meaning of that provision?

In the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2015, ERSTE Bank Hungary (C-32/14, EU:C:2015:637, paragraph 62); of 10 September 2014, Kušionová (C-34/13, EU:C:2014:2189, paragraph 56); and of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (C–40/08, EU:C:2009:615, paragraph 47), is it possibly also permissible to interpret Article 339(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure as meaning that a default judgment may be delivered in a case [concerning a consumer credit agreement] ... with no examination of the agreement submitted by the applicant and attached to the application from the point of view of potentially unfair terms contained therein, and also no checks on whether the agreement contained all the elements required by law, relying solely on the applicant’s statement of facts?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---