# C_2020010EN.01001401.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy Pragi-Południe w Warszawie and the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu, II Wydział Cywilny Odwoławczy — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska S.A. v Bogumiła Włostowska and Others (C-419/18), Profi Credit Polska S.A. v OH (C-483/18)

(Joined Cases C-419/18 and C-483/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) - Article 6(1) - Article 7(1) - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 10(2) - Credit agreements for consumers - Lawfulness of securing the debt arising under the agreement by means of a blank promissory note - Demand for payment of the debt owed under the promissory note - Scope of the court’s powers and obligations)

(2020/C 10/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring courts

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy Pragi-Południe w Warszawie, Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu, II Wydział Cywilny Odwoławczy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A. (C-419/18 and C-483/18)

Defendants: Bogumiła Włostowska, Mariusz Kurpiewski, Kamil Wójcik, Michał Konarzewski, Elżbieta Kondracka-Kłębecka, Monika Karwowska, Stanisław Kowalski, Anna Trusik, Adam Lizoń, Włodzimierz Lisowski (C-419/18), OH (C-483/18)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 1(1), 3(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of securing the payment of the debt arising under a consumer credit agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, makes it possible to stipulate in that contract an obligation on the borrower to issue a blank promissory note, and which makes the lawfulness of the issuance of such a note subject to the prior conclusion of a promissory note agreement determining the detailed rules in accordance with which that note may be completed, provided that that stipulation and that agreement comply with Articles 3 and 5 of that directive and Article 10 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, a matter which is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1(1), 3(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of securing the payment of the debt arising under a consumer credit agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, makes it possible to stipulate in that contract an obligation on the borrower to issue a blank promissory note, and which makes the lawfulness of the issuance of such a note subject to the prior conclusion of a promissory note agreement determining the detailed rules in accordance with which that note may be completed, provided that that stipulation and that agreement comply with Articles 3 and 5 of that directive and Article 10 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, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.

| 2. | Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that where, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a national court has serious doubts as to the merits of an application based on a promissory note intended to secure the debt arising under a consumer credit agreement and that note was initially left blank when issued by the maker and subsequently completed by the payee, that court must examine of its own motion whether the provisions agreed between the parties are unfair and, in that respect, may require the seller or supplier to produce the document recording those provisions so that that court is able to verify that the rights that consumers derive from those directives are observed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that where, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a national court has serious doubts as to the merits of an application based on a promissory note intended to secure the debt arising under a consumer credit agreement and that note was initially left blank when issued by the maker and subsequently completed by the payee, that court must examine of its own motion whether the provisions agreed between the parties are unfair and, in that respect, may require the seller or supplier to produce the document recording those provisions so that that court is able to verify that the rights that consumers derive from those directives are observed.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---