# C_2020287EN.01000401.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş — Romania) — SC Raiffeisen Bank SA v JB (C-698/18), BRD Groupe Société Générale SA v KC (C-699/18)

(Joined Cases C-698/18 and C-699/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Personal loan agreement - Contract performed in full - Finding that contractual terms are unfair - Action for reimbursement of sums unduly paid on the basis of an unfair clause - Judicial arrangements - Ordinary legal action not subject to any limitation period - Ordinary legal action of a personal and pecuniary nature subject to a limitation period - Point from which the limitation period starts to run - Objective point in time at which the consumer knows of the existence of the unfair term)

(2020/C 287/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureş

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Raiffeisen Bank SA (C 698/18), BRD Groupe Société Générale SA (C-699/18)

Defendants: JB (C 698/18), KC (C-699/18)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(b), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule which, while providing that an action seeking a finding of nullity of an unfair term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is not subject to a time limit, subjects the action seeking to enforce the restitutory effects of that finding to a limitation period, provided that that period is not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that it does not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the EU legal order, in particular Directive 93/13 (principle of effectiveness); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(b), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule which, while providing that an action seeking a finding of nullity of an unfair term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is not subject to a time limit, subjects the action seeking to enforce the restitutory effects of that finding to a limitation period, provided that that period is not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that it does not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the EU legal order, in particular Directive 93/13 (principle of effectiveness);

| 2. | Article 2(b), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of the national rule according to which the legal action for reimbursement of amounts unduly paid on the basis of an unfair term in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier is subject to a three-year limitation period which runs from the date of full performance of the contract, where it is assumed, without need for verification, that, on that date the consumer should have known about the unfair nature of the term in question or where for similar actions, based on certain provisions of national law, that same period starts to run only from the time when a court finds there to be a cause of those actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(b), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of the national rule according to which the legal action for reimbursement of amounts unduly paid on the basis of an unfair term in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier is subject to a three-year limitation period which runs from the date of full performance of the contract, where it is assumed, without need for verification, that, on that date the consumer should have known about the unfair nature of the term in question or where for similar actions, based on certain provisions of national law, that same period starts to run only from the time when a court finds there to be a cause of those actions;

| 3. | The Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Specialised Court, Mureş, Romania) in its order for reference of 12 June 2018 concerning Case C-699/18. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Specialised Court, Mureş, Romania) in its order for reference of 12 June 2018 concerning Case C-699/18.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---