Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:337
Date: 2026-04-23
Language of the case: Polish

summary of the subject matter of the main proceedings, together with the relevant facts as established by the referring court, or, at the very least, a statement of the facts on which the questions are based. Similarly, that request must include a statement of the reasons which led the referring court to raise questions regarding the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of EU law, as well as the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the main proceedings. 36 It is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that, although the referring court has set out its own findings very briefly, in contrast to the differing views of the parties to the main proceedings, the Court nevertheless has, in the light of the information set out in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the present judgment, the necessary information to provide a useful answer to the questions referred. 37 It follows that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are admissible. The substance 38 As a preliminary point, in so far as the referring court describes the insurance premium at issue in the main proceedings as a ‘cost of credit excluding interest’, it should first be noted that that concept is not provided for in Directive 2008/48, but by Polish law and, more specifically, in Article 5(6a) of the Law on Consumer Credit (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 March 2020, Mikrokasa and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty, C‑779/18, EU:C:2020:236, paragraphs 40 and 42). 39 The Court referred to that concept in its judgment of 26 March 2020, Mikrokasa and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty (C‑779/18, EU:C:2020:236), stating, in paragraph 40 of that judgment, that it constitutes a subcategory of the ‘total cost of the credit’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48, which encompasses all costs, including interest. 40 Next, it should be noted that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling concern the total cost of the loan granted to P.W., which includes, in addition to interest, a sum of PLN 16 785.08 intended to cover the cost of credit insurance, described as voluntary. The referring court has doubts as to whether the bank’s practice of charging interest on the amount paid to P.W. in performance of the contract, plus the cost of credit excluding interest, complies with Directive 2008/48, specifying that the latter include, in particular, the costs of ancillary services to the contract, notably insurance, where such costs are essential to obtain the credit or to obtain it on the terms set out in the offer. 41 In that regard, it is important to note that the ‘voluntary’ nature of the credit insurance at issue in the main proceedings means that it was not a prerequisite for obtaining the loan as such. However, in so far as taking out that credit insurance was accompanied by a reduction in the interest rate on the credit, that credit insurance was required in order to obtain the credit on the terms set out in the offer thereof. In those circumstances, the insurance premium, which, in accordance with Article 6(1) of the credit agreement, forms part of the total cost of the credit, thus falls within the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48. 42 Finally, in so far as the referring court treats ‘non-interest credit costs’ as a sum not paid to the borrower, it should be emphasised that the classification of a ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, as provided for in Article 3(g), as a specific amount to be borne by the borrower in accordance with the credit agreement, does not depend on whether or not that amount has been paid into the borrower’s bank account. 43 The fact that the borrowed sums are first paid into the borrower’s bank account before being used to pay for goods or services, or to settle certain costs, or that the lender makes the payment directly to the borrower’s creditors, is of a contingent nature and cannot, as such, affect their classification as credit costs. The first question 44 According to settled case-law, in the context of cooperation between national courts and the Court established by Article 267 TFEU, it is for the Court to provide the national court with a useful answer enabling it to resolve the dispute before it. With that in mind, it is for the Court, where necessary, to reformulate the questions referred to it. It is for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the order for reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (see judgments of 29 November 1978, Redmond, 83/78, EU:C:1978:214, paragraph 26; of 28 November 2000, Roquette Frères, C‑88/99, EU:C:2000:652, paragraph 18; and of 2 December 2025, Russmedia Digital and Inform Media Press, C‑492/23, EU:C:2025:935, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). 45 In the present case, the referring court is hearing a case in which it must rule on the compliance with Directive 2008/48 of a practice of the bank consisting in charging interest on an amount comprising, in addition to the principal of the loan, non-interest credit costs, namely on a sum which has not been paid in full to the borrower. 46 It must therefore be held that, by its first question, the referring court, asks, in essence, whether Article 3(g) and (j) of Directive 2008/48, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion, in consumer credit agreements, of terms providing for the application of the interest rate not only to the total amount of the credit but also to sums allocated to the payment of costs associated with that credit and which, as a result, form part of the total cost of the credit to the consumer. 47 It should be noted that, according to Article 1 thereof, the purpose of Directive 2008/48 is to harmonise certain aspects of the Member States’ rules on consumer credit agreements. 48 Furthermore, it follows from Article 22(1) of that directive that, in so far as it contains harmonised provisions, Member States may not maintain or introduce national provisions other than those laid down in that directive. 49 As is apparent from the definitions set out in Article 3 of Directive 2008/48, the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ is linked to the definitions of ‘total amount of credit’ and ‘total amount payable by the consumer’ for the purpose of calculating the APR (judgment of 16 July 2020, Soho Group, C‑686/19, EU:C:2020:582, paragraph 38). 50 Since Article 3 of that directive makes no reference to national law in relation to those concepts, each of them must be regarded as constituting an autonomous concept of EU law, to be interpreted in a uniform manner throughout the territory of the European Union (judgment of 16 July 2020, Soho Group, C‑686/19, EU:C:2020:582, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). 51 First of all, as regards the concept of ‘total amount of credit’ within the meaning of Directive 2008/48, that is defined in Article 3(l) as the ceiling or the total sums made available under a credit agreement. 52 Next, as is apparent from the Court’s case-law, in order to ensure comprehensive consumer protection, the EU legislature has adopted, in Article 3(g) of that directive, a broad definition of the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ as covering all the costs, including interest, taxes and all kind of fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement and which are known to the lender, with the exception of notary fees (judgment of 26 March 2020, Mikrokasa and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty, C‑779/18, EU:C:2020:236, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3(i) of that directive, the APR corresponds to the ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, expressed as an annual percentage of the total amount of credit, taking into account, where applicable, the costs referred to in Article 19(2) of that directive. 53 Finally, it should be noted that, since the concept of ‘total amount payable by the consumer’ is defined in Article 3(h) of Directive 2008/48 as meaning ‘the sum of the total amount of credit and the total cost of the credit to the consumer’, it follows that the concepts of ‘total amount of credit’ and ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ are mutually exclusive and that, consequently, the ‘total amount of credit’ cannot include any of the sums forming part of the total cost of the credit to the consumer (judgments of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283, paragraph 85, and of 16 July 2020, Soho Group, C‑686/19, EU:C:2020:582, paragraph 42). 54 Thus, Directive 2008/48 contains a complete definition of the breakdown of amounts under consumer credit agreements (judgment of 16 July 2020, Soho Group, C‑686/19, EU:C:2020:582, paragraph 43). 55 With regard to the ‘borrowing rate’, which is defined in Article 3(j) of Directive 2008/48 as the ‘interest rate … applied … to the amount of credit drawn down’, it should be noted that the total amount of credit and the amount of the credit drawdown designate the sums made available to the consumer, which excludes those used by the lender to pay the costs connected with the credit concerned and which are not actually paid to that consumer (judgment of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283, paragraph 91). 56 In paragraphs 87 and 88 of the judgment of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová (C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283), after emphasising that the calculation of the APR depends on the total amount of credit and that, under Directive 2008/48, the basic equation defining the APR expresses, on an annual basis, the equality between, on the one hand, the sum of the present values of the credit drawdowns and, on the other hand, the sum of the present values of the repayment amounts and fee payments, the Court consequently held that the amount of the credit drawdown, within the meaning of Part I of Annex I to that directive, corresponds to the total amount of credit, within the meaning of Article 3(l) thereof. 57 Consequently, none of the sums intended to cover the agreed commitments under the relevant credit concerned – such as administrative costs, interest, commissions and any other type of charge which the consumer is required to pay – may be included either in the total amount of credit, within the meaning of Article 3(l) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48, or in the amount of the credit drawdown within the meaning of Article 3(j) of Directive 2008/48 (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283, paragraph 86). 58 That also applies to insurance costs, which the referring court has classified as non-interest credit costs, constituting, as is apparent from paragraphs 39 and 41 of the present judgment, a subcategory of the ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48. 59 It should be noted that that approach, as set out in the judgments of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová (C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283); of 26 March 2020, Mikrokasa and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty (C‑779/18, EU:C:2020:236); and of 16 July 2020, Soho Group (C‑686/19, EU:C:2020:582), does not have the effect of limiting the types of costs or charges that may be imposed by the lender on the consumer under a credit agreement. 60 The lender may choose not to apply the contractual interest rate to amounts corresponding to the cost of credit, whilst avoiding a gradual depreciation of the value of money over time, by applying a proportionally higher borrowing rate that reflects the cost of not receiving interest on amounts corresponding to the cost of credit. In that way, the lender can make credit accessible even to consumers who have no initial capital to finance the costs incurred by entering into the credit agreement. 61 Such a solution is, moreover, consistent with the objectives of Directive 2008/48. 62 It should be noted that that directive was adopted with the dual aim of ensuring a high and equivalent level of protection for the interests of all consumers in the European Union and of facilitating the emergence of an efficient internal market for consumer credit. It is clear from recital 19 of that directive that it seeks, inter alia, to ensure that consumers receive adequate information, prior to the conclusion of the credit agreement, in particular on the APR throughout the European Union, to enable them to compare the rates applied (judgment of 16 July 2020, Soho Group, C‑686/19, EU:C:2020:582, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited). 63 As recitals 31 and 43 of Directive 2008/48 essentially state, it is of vital importance that consumers are informed of the total cost of credit in the form of a rate calculated using a single mathematical formula. First, that information contributes to market transparency in that it enables the consumer to compare credit offers. Secondly, it enables the consumer to assess the scope of his or her commitment (judgment of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283, paragraph 90 and the case-law cited). 64 Such market transparency would be undermined if it were possible to distinguish between different interest rates, and, in particular, between the borrowing rate applicable to the amount of credit drawn down and other interest rates applied in the Member States to credited sums that do not fall within that definition of the amount of credit drawn down. 65 In view of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 3(g) and (j) of Directive 2008/48, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion, in consumer credit agreements, of terms providing for the application of the interest rate not only to the total amount of the credit but also to sums allocated to the payment of costs associated with that credit and which, as a result, form part of the total cost of the credit to the consumer. The second question 66 Since insurance costs, as a component of the ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48, cannot be included in the amount of the credit drawdown within the meaning of Article 3(j) of that directive, there is no need to answer the second question. Costs 67 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules: Article 3(g) and (j) 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, as amended by Directive (EU) 2021/2167 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion, in consumer credit agreements, of terms providing for the application of the interest rate not only to the total amount of the credit but also to sums allocated to the payment of costs associated with that credit and which, as a result, form part of the total cost of the credit to the consumer. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Polish.