Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2213
Date: 2014-09-11
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 18 December 2014 1. Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48 — Pre-contractual obligations — Duty to inform and to assess the creditworthiness of the consumer — Detailed rules for, and burden of proving fulfilment of those obligations — Application of national law — Limits — Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Assessment by the national court (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48) 2. Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48 — Pre-contractual obligations — Duty to inform and to assess the creditworthiness of the consumer — National rules laying the burden of proof on the consumer — Unlawful — Standard term inserted in the credit agreement, whereby the consumer acknowledges the fulfilment of those pre-contractual obligations — Term resulting in a reversal of the burden of proof — Unlawful (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Arts 5 and 8) 3. Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48 — Pre-contractual obligations — Creditor’s obligation to carry out a creditworthiness check of the consumer — Detailed rules for proving fulfilment of that obligation — Assessment by the creditor — Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Art. 8(1)) 4. Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48 — Pre-contractual obligations — Adequate explanations provided by the creditor before assessing the creditworthiness of the consumer — Lawfulness — Limits — No requirements regarding the form of those explanations (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Art. 5(6)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 23-26) 2. The provisions of Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Directive 87/102 must be interpreted to the effect that: – first, they preclude national rules according to which the burden of proving the non-performance of the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 8 of Directive 2008/48 lies with the consumer; and – secondly, they preclude a court from having to find that, as a result of a standard term, a consumer has acknowledged that the creditor’s pre-contractual obligations have been fully and correctly performed, with that term thereby resulting in a reversal of the burden of proving the performance of those obligations such as to undermine the effectiveness of the rights conferred by Directive 2008/48. (see para. 32, operative part 1) 3. Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Directive 87/102 must be interpreted to the effect that, first, it does not preclude the consumer’s creditworthiness assessment from being carried out solely on the basis of information supplied by the consumer, provided that that information is sufficient and that mere declarations by the consumer are also accompanied by supporting evidence and, secondly, that it does not require the creditor to carry out systematic checks of the veracity of the information supplied by the consumer. (see para. 39, operative part 2) 4. Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Directive 87/102 must be interpreted to the effect that, although it does not preclude a creditor from providing the consumer with adequate explanations before assessing the financial situation and the needs of that consumer, it may be that the assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness means that the adequate explanations provided need to be adapted, and that those explanations must be communicated to the consumer in good time before the credit agreement is signed, without this, however, requiring a specific document to be drawn up. (see para. 49, operative part 3)