Order — ECLI:EU:C:2026:136
Date: 2026-02-25
Language of the case: Slovak
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovakia

Summary C-168/25 – 1 
Case C-168/25 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
28 February 2025 
Referring court: 
Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovakia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
13 February 2025 
Applicant: 
Bytové družstvo so sídlom v Trnave 
Defendant: 
Prima banka Slovensko a. s. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Articles 2(b) and (c), 
3(1) and (2), 4(2) and 5 – Consumer contracts – Concept of ‘consumer’ – Concept 
of ‘unfair term’ – Concept of ‘contractual terms which have not been individually 
negotiated’ – Concept of ‘terms … in plain intelligible language’ – Requirement 
of transparency – Unilateral variation in interest rate brought about by a change in 
the consumer’s level of risk – Business secrecy – Unjust enrichment 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Articles 2(b) and (c), 3(1) and (2), 4(2) and 5 of Council 
Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 
1993 L 95, p. 29). 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 2. 2025 – CASE C-168/25 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair 
terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes 
of that directive, the concept of ‘consumer’ also includes a natural person 
who, when concluding a contract coming within the scope of that directive 
with a seller or supplier as defined in Article 2(c) of that directive, is 
represented by a legal person who is thereby carrying on an economic 
activity, if that natural person is acting for purposes which are outside his or 
her trade, business or profession? 
2. Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair 
terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes 
of that directive, the concept of ‘consumer’ also includes a natural person 
who is represented, in contracts coming within the scope of that directive 
with a seller or supplier, as defined in Article 2(c) of that directive, by a 
representative who is required to act with professional diligence in managing 
a natural person’s assets, if that natural person is acting for purposes which 
are outside his or her trade, business or profession? 
3. Must Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 
on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a 
contractual term was individually negotiated if the consumer’s 
representative had previously influenced the substance of that term in his or 
her capacity as a representative of the same category of consumers when 
concluding the same type of contract? 
4. Must Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair 
terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the requirement 
of transparency applies to all or certain terms offered to the consumer in 
writing, irrespective of whether they have been individually negotiated? 
5. Must Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that 
the requirement of transparency applying to the seller or supplier under 
those provisions is satisfied if a loan agreement, which authorises the 
supplier to vary the interest rate unilaterally on the ground of a change in the 
consumer’s level of risk, does not allow the consumer, by relying on 
business secrecy, to understand the specific methods for assessing the 
consumer’s risk? 
6. If the answer to the fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling is in the 
affirmative, must Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC 
of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as 
meaning that the requirement of transparency applying to a seller or supplier 
under those provisions is satisfied if a term which authorises the supplier to 
vary the interest rate unilaterally includes, as a circumstance justifying the 
BYTOVÉ DRUŽSTVO 
 
3 
exercise of that right, a change in the consumer’s level of risk, even though 
the contract itself does not define the concept of ‘level of risk’ but merely 
states, by way of example, that it may be linked to a change in the 
consumer’s creditworthiness? 
7. Must Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that 
the requirement of transparency applying to the seller or supplier under 
those provisions is satisfied if a loan agreement which authorises the 
supplier to vary the interest rate unilaterally on the ground of a change in the 
consumer’s level of risk does not allow the consumer, by relying on business 
secrecy, to understand how the variation in the interest rate is calculated? 
8. If the answer to the seventh question referred for a preliminary ruling is in 
the affirmative, must Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 
93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be 
interpreted as meaning that the requirement of transparency applying to the 
seller or supplier under those provisions is satisfied if a term which 
authorises the supplier to vary the interest rate unilaterally does not contain 
the method for calculating the variation in the interest rate? 
Relevant provisions of European Union law and case-law of the Court of 
Justice 
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer 
contracts (‘Directive 93/13’) (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29): Articles 2(b) and (c), 3(1) and 
(2), 4(2) and 5 
Case-law of the Court of Justice: judgments: Costea (C-110/14, EU:C:2015:538, 
paragraphs 21, 26 and 27), Pouvin and Dijoux (C-590/17, EU:C:2019:232, 
paragraph 24), mBank (C-139/22, EU:C:2023:692, paragraph 67), Volvo Car 
Germany (C-203/09, EU: C:2010:647), Invitel (C-472/10, EU:C:C:2012:242), 
Kásler and Káslerné Rábai (C-26/13, 30 April 2014, EU:C:2014:282, 
paragraphs 69 and 71), Gómez del Moral Guasch (C-125/18, EU:C:2020:138), 
A.S.A. (C-212/20, EU:C:2021:934), Marleasing SA (C-106/89, EU:C:1990:395), 
Océano Grupo (C-240/98 to 244/98, EU:C:2000:346) and Konstantinos Adeneler 
(C-212/04, EU:C:2006:443) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zákon č. 40/1964 Zb. Občiansky zákonník v znení neskorších predpisov (Law 
No 40/1964 – the Civil Code, as subsequently amended; ‘the OZ’), in the version 
in force as of 19 October 2006: 
A The provisions of the OZ introduced by zákon č. 150/2004 Z. z., ktorým sa 
mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 40/1964 Zb. Občiansky zákonník v znení neskorších 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 2. 2025 – CASE C-168/25 
 
4  
predpisov (Law No 150/2004 Z.z. amending Law No 40/1964 Zb., Civil Code, as 
subsequently amended) (‘Law No 150/2004’, which transposed Directive 93/13 
into Slovak law): 
Paragraph 52(1) to (3): 
‘1. Consumer contracts are […] contracts in which the parties are, on the one 
hand, a seller or supplier and, on the other hand, a consumer, who could not 
individually influence the substance of the draft of the contract prepared in 
advance by the seller or supplier. 
2. A seller or supplier is a person who, in concluding and performing a 
consumer contract, is acting in the course of his, her or its trade or other economic 
activity. 
3. A consumer is a person who, in concluding and performing a consumer 
contract, is not acting in the course of his, her or its trade or other economic 
activity’. 
Paragraph 53(1) to (4): 
‘1. Consumer contracts shall not contain terms which create a significant 
imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract to the 
detriment of the consumer (‘unfair terms’). 
2. Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the subject matter of the supply or the price 
of the supply. 
3. Unfair terms in a consumer contract shall, in particular, be terms which 
(a) the consumer must perform but with which he or she had no opportunity of 
becoming acquainted prior to the conclusion of the contract; 
[…] 
(i) enable the seller or supplier to vary the terms of the contract unilaterally 
without a reason agreed in the contract; 
[…] 
4. Unfair terms in consumer contracts shall be void’. 
Paragraph 54(1) and (2): 
‘1. The terms of a consumer contract cannot derogate from this Law to the 
detriment of the consumer. […] 
2. Where there is doubt as to the substance of consumer contracts, the 
interpretation more favourable to the consumer shall prevail’. 
BYTOVÉ DRUŽSTVO 
 
5 
B Provisions of the OZ which were in force prior to the adoption of Law 
No 150/2004 and transposed Articles 4(1) and 5 of Directive 93/13 into Slovak 
law: 
Paragraph 22(1) of the OZ: 
‘A representative is a person who is authorised to act on behalf of another. 
Representation shall give rise to rights and obligations directly for the person 
represented’. 
Paragraph 37(1) of the OZ: 
‘1. A legal act must be performed voluntarily and earnestly, in a certain and 
intelligible manner; otherwise it shall be null and void’. 
The provisions of the OZ concerning: (i) representation (Paragraph 23); (ii) 
interpretation of legal acts expressed in words (Paragraph 35(2) of the OZ); (iii) 
invalidity of only part of a legal act (Paragraph 41); and (iv) unjust enrichment 
(Paragraphs 451(1) and (2), 456 and 458(1)) 
Zákon č. 182/1993 Z. z. o vlastníctve bytov a nebytových priestorov (Law 
No 182/1993 Z.z. on the ownership of apartments and non-residential premises 
(‘the BZ’) in the version in force as of 19 October 2006: 
Paragraph 8(1) and (5): 
‘1. A manager may be a legal person or a natural person who is a business 
operator whose object is the management and maintenance of housing stock. […] 
[…] 
5. The manager shall be liable to the owners of the apartments and non-
residential premises in the building for any damage resulting from the non-
performance or improper performance of the manager’s obligations under this 
Law or the management contract’. 
Paragraph 8b(1) of the BZ: 
‘1. The manager shall be obliged to manage the owners’ property 
independently, in the manager’s own name and on behalf of the owners of the 
apartments and non-residential premises in the building’. 
Paragraph 8b(2)(a) of the BZ: 
‘2. When managing the owners’ property, the manager shall in particular 
(a) manage it with professional diligence in accordance with the terms of the 
management contract, […]’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 2. 2025 – CASE C-168/25 
 
6  
Paragraph 8b(3), first sentence, of the BZ: 
‘3. In procuring services and goods, the manager shall be obliged to negotiate 
the most favourable terms that can be negotiated for the benefit of the owners of 
the apartments and non-residential premises in the building’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is a legal person which is the manager of a residential building 
pursuant to a management contract concluded with the owners of the apartments 
and non-residential premises in the residential building (‘the owners of the 
premises’). The defendant is a legal person – a bank which accepts deposits and 
grants loans. On 19 October 2006, the applicant, as a customer, and the defendant, 
as a bank, concluded a loan agreement for the purpose of carrying out necessary 
repairs to the residential building. Pursuant to that loan agreement, the defendant 
granted a loan of SKK 4 146 373 (Slovak koruna; approximately EUR 137 634). 
Clause 2.2.4 of the loan agreement is worded as follows: 
‘2.2.4.  Interest rate on loan 
2.2.4.1. Type of interest rate: Variable 
2.2.4.2. The base rate is the value of the 6-month BRIBOR rate. 
2.2.4.3. The interest spread is 1.0% per annum. 
2.2.4.4. The total variable interest rate shall be the value of the 6-month 
BRIBOR rate + an interest spread of 1.0% per annum’. 
Clause 5.5 of the loan agreement is worded as follows: 
‘The Bank shall have the right to vary the interest rate accordingly in the event of 
a change in the Refinancing Costs incurred by the Bank or a change in the 
Customer’s level of risk. A change in the Customer’s level of risk may be linked 
primarily to a change in the Customer’s creditworthiness, as established by the 
Bank, or to a change in the Customer’s risk weight in accordance with the rules 
laid down by the National Bank of Slovakia. For the assessment of the amount of 
the Refinancing Costs and the change in the Customer’s level of risk, the facts 
prevailing at the time of their last assessment in comparison with the current 
decisive facts shall be decisive. The Bank shall be entitled to vary the relevant 
interest rate automatically without having to amend the agreement. The Bank shall 
notify the Customer in writing of the change within a reasonable period’. 
2 The applicant and the defendant concluded more than 40 similar loan agreements 
which contain almost identical wording in clause 5.5. During the negotiation of 
each such loan agreement, they did not refer in detail to the wording of clause 5.5 
as they had already negotiated it individually. 
BYTOVÉ DRUŽSTVO 
 
7 
3 By letter of 8 June 2011, the defendant notified the applicant that, pursuant to 
clause 5.5 of the loan agreement, the interest spread of the loan in question would 
be changed with effect from 1 July 2011 to 2.50% per annum, with the total 
interest rate being the value of the 6-month EURIBOR + 2.50% per annum, with 
the result that by 29 June 2018 the owners of the premises had paid the defendant 
EUR 5 886.57 more. 
4 The applicant brought an action for unjust enrichment before the Okresný súd 
Trnava (District Court, Trnava), which dismissed its action. The Krajský súd v 
Trnava (Regional Court, Trnava), which made a reference for a preliminary 
ruling, is examining that judgment in appeal proceedings. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
5 The applicant claims that the owners of the premises paid the defendant the 
amount claimed under the loan on the basis of clause 5.5 of the loan agreement, 
which the applicant considers void because it is an unfair term (Paragraph 53(1) to 
(4) of the OZ). It maintains that it became aware of the ground for the invalidity of 
clause 5.5 of the loan agreement from an opinion of the National Bank of 
Slovakia. 
6 The applicant further claims that clause 5.5 of the loan agreement is unclear and 
disproportionate since it clearly places the consumer at a disadvantage compared 
to the lender, in particular as regards the bank’s right to decide to increase its own 
margin, that is to say profit (interest rate). The contractual terms in question are 
not transparent as they are worded too broadly and ambiguously and can be 
arbitrarily applied by the bank and are therefore unfair. 
7 The applicant considers that the term ‘customer’s level of risk’ in clause 5.5 of the 
loan agreement means the supplier’s subjective assessment of the consumers’ 
ability to repay the loan, which is decided solely by the supplier on the basis of 
unclear rules. 
8 The applicant submits that clause 5.5 of the loan agreement does not contain any 
specific objective reason for a variation in the interest rate (independent of the 
supplier’s will). In the view of the applicant, the reason for the variation must be 
sufficiently transparent and explicitly stated in the contractual term. It is therefore 
not sufficient for the contractual term merely to repeat the general contractual 
concept of material ground. The material nature of the reason means that it is 
objective in nature, that is to say, the reason lies beyond the supplier’s control and 
is independent of the supplier’s will. That reason should not constitute a risk 
which, on account of the nature of the contract, should be borne by the supplier. It 
is not clear from the loan agreement how and on what basis the supplier 
determined the consumer’s creditworthiness when concluding the agreement. The 
decision to vary the interest rate is therefore a unilateral decision of the defendant 
with no clear, certain and foreseeable conditions. The applicant added that the 
consumer has no way of establishing, on the basis of clause 5.5 of the loan 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 2. 2025 – CASE C-168/25 
 
8  
agreement, whether the defendant, as a bank, acted in varying the interest rate (in 
its favour or to its disadvantage) in accordance with or contrary to the agreement 
in question as its vagueness does not allow the substance thereof to be determined 
properly. 
9 The defendant disputes the position of the other party to the agreement. In the 
view of the defendant, it is undisputed that the purpose of the loan agreement was 
to improve the financial situation of natural persons as the owners of the premises 
and that the applicant, in concluding it on behalf of the owners of the premises 
pursuant to the BZ, acted as a business operator. It therefore submits that the loan 
agreement is not covered by consumer protection in those circumstances. It draws 
attention to two circumstances: first, in concluding the agreement at issue, the 
applicant acted as a business operator specialising exclusively in the management 
of residential buildings; second, under the BZ, the applicant should act with 
professional diligence in such cases. In the view of the defendant, the applicant as 
manager has sufficient knowledge and experience to understand the substance of 
the contractual terms, which, in the defendant’s view, precludes the represented 
owners of the premises from being regarded as consumers within the meaning of 
Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13. The defendant further submits that the applicant as 
manager, by representing the owners, assumed responsibility for the substance and 
terms of the loan agreement. 
10 The defendant further contends that clause 5.5 of the loan agreement constitutes a 
contractual term which was individually negotiated because the applicant had 
already influenced the substance of that term in the past, namely in the course of 
its activities as a representative of the same category of consumers when 
concluding the same type of agreement. 
11 The defendant argues that clause 5.5 of the loan agreement is sufficiently clear 
and intelligible. 
12 The defendant further contends that it did not disclose to the applicant the specific 
indicators which affected the increase in the consumer’s level of risk as they are 
business secrets. It notes that the loan agreement was concluded for 10 years and 
that the assessment of the customer’s level of risk is made in the light of risk 
assessment rules laid down by the banking regulator, which were not known to the 
counterparty at the time the agreement was concluded or could have been adopted 
or amended by the regulator at any time. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
13 The first question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 
the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13, 
from which it is apparent that the purpose for which a natural person acts cannot 
be linked to his or her economic activity. According to the settled case-law of the 
Court of Justice, the criterion relating to a link with an economic activity is an 
essential element of the definition of ‘consumer’. The existence of a link with an 
BYTOVÉ DRUŽSTVO 
 
9 
economic activity precludes a natural person from being regarded as a consumer 
within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13. In the view of the referring 
court, however, the question arises as to whether it is relevant to the definition of 
that concept whether the natural person is represented by a legal person who is 
thereby carrying on an economic activity. In the present case, the loan agreement 
was concluded on behalf of the owners of the premises by the manager, who was 
thereby carrying on its economic activity (management of residential buildings), 
the scope of which undoubtedly includes negotiating the financing of the 
redevelopment and renovation of residential buildings. An answer to that question 
is necessary in order to ascertain whether the interpretation of clause 5.5 of the 
loan agreement is subject to Directive 93/13 and, consequently, to the provisions 
of national law concerning the protection of consumers against unfair contractual 
terms (Paragraph 53(1) and (4) of the OZ). 
14 The second question for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the 
concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13, from 
which it is not directly apparent whether the definition of ‘consumer’ is affected 
by the fact that, under national law, a manager acts for a natural person as a 
representative (Paragraph 22(1) OZ) who, under national law, is obliged to act 
with professional diligence (Paragraph 8b(2)(a) of the BZ) on pain of liability to 
pay compensation to the person represented, and to negotiate the most favourable 
terms for the person represented (Paragraph 8b(3) of the BZ), that is to say, in the 
present case, for the owners of the premises. 
15 The third question for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 
Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13, from which it is apparent that, where a 
contractual term has been individually negotiated, it does not meet the definition 
of an unfair term, whereas contractual terms will be regarded as not individually 
negotiated where they has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore 
not been able to influence their substance, particularly in the context of a pre-
formulated standard contract. The contractual term contained in clause 5.5 of the 
loan agreement was also contained in other similar loan agreements which the 
applicant negotiated with the defendant as manager of other residential buildings 
and which it had also concluded with the defendant prior to the loan agreement in 
question. In the view of the referring court, it can be inferred from Article 3(2) of 
Directive 93/13 that its purpose is to protect the consumer against contractual 
terms, the substance of which constitutes a pre-formulated standard contract. It 
follows from Directive 93/13 that the standard contract is not formulated by the 
consumer, but by the supplier. In the interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 
93/13, the fact that the person who, in a contractual relationship with other 
consumers, negotiated such a standard contract, including the contractual term at 
issue, as their representative (factual aspect), participated in the formulation of the 
standard contract, including the contractual term at issue, by the supplier, may 
therefore be relevant, even though, under national law, the person represented is 
subject to the obligations arising from the representative’s conduct only in relation 
to the contractual relationship in which it represents the person represented and 
not other persons (legal aspect). By that question, the referring court thus seeks to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 2. 2025 – CASE C-168/25 
 
10  
ascertain whether, for the purposes of interpreting the concept of ‘individually 
negotiated’, it is relevant whether the substance of a contractual term negotiated 
by a consumer’s representative in a contract has been influenced in the past by 
that representative in its capacity as a representative of the same category of 
consumers when concluding the same type of contract. 
16 The fourth question for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 
Article 5 of Directive 93/13, which lays down the ‘requirement of transparency’. 
The unfair nature of a contractual term is also assessed on the basis of the 
requirement of transparency contained in the first sentence of Article 5 of 
Directive 93/13. Since the unfair nature of a term is ruled out if it has been 
individually negotiated, it would at first sight appear that in such cases the 
requirement of transparency laid down in the first sentence of Article 5 of the 
Directive would likewise not apply. However, the wording of the first sentence of 
Article 5 of Directive 93/[13] contains the expression ‘always’. According to that 
provision, ‘in the case of contracts where all or certain terms offered to the 
consumer are in writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible 
language’. That would lead to the conclusion that the requirement of transparency 
prevails over the exception of individual negotiation of the contractual term. The 
referring court therefore has doubts as to whether Article 5 of Directive 93/13 
applies to all or certain terms offered to the consumer in writing, irrespective of 
whether they have been individually negotiated. 
17 The fifth question for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 
Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of Directive 93/13 with regard to the scope of the 
requirement of transparency in relation to the information that a supplier must 
provide to a consumer. The central concept of clause 5.5 of the loan agreement, 
which is the most contentious, is the ‘customer’s level of risk’. The loan 
agreement does not specifically define that concept, but states, as an example, that 
a change in the customer’s level of risk may be linked to a change in the client’s 
creditworthiness. In the present case, the supplier regards the specific functioning 
of the method used for assessing the consumer’s level of risk, which forms the 
basis for calculating the change in the remuneration for granting the loan, as its 
business secret, the disclosure of which may put it at a competitive disadvantage. 
As business secrecy enjoys protection under Slovak law, the referring court 
considers that exception to be relevant in assessing the scope of the requirement of 
transparency in relation to the information that is to be disclosed to the consumer 
in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice (judgments in Gómez del 
Moral Guasch and A.S.A.). If the exception relating to business secrecy were 
relevant to the requirement of transparency in terms of the scope of the 
information that the supplier discloses to the consumer, the contractual term at 
issue could be sufficiently transparent. 
18 The sixth question for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of 
Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of Directive 93/13, as regards whether mere knowledge 
on the part of the consumer, obtained by reading the wording of a contractual 
term, that the supplier may make a unilateral change in the remuneration for the 
BYTOVÉ DRUŽSTVO 
 
11 
loan (interest rate) in the event of a change in the consumer’s level of risk, even 
though the loan agreement does not define that provision but merely states, by 
way of example, that it may be linked in particular to a change in the consumer’s 
creditworthiness, as determined by the supplier, is sufficient to satisfy the 
requirement of transparency. The case-law of the Court of Justice requires that the 
consumer must in a position to foresee, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, 
any variation in the interest rate (judgment in Invitel, C-472/10, EU: C:2012:242). 
Clause 5.5 of the loan agreement contains only one criterion for a possible 
variation in the interest rate, namely a change in the customer’s level of risk, 
which can be linked to a change in the customer’s creditworthiness. However, the 
defendant has failed to explain what circumstances give rise to a change in the 
customer’s credit worthiness, and it has not been established in the proceedings 
that the National Bank of Slovakia has laid down rules governing the customer’s 
risk weight. The referring court therefore has reason to doubt whether a 
contractual term thus formulated satisfies the requirement of transparency arising 
from Directive 93/13. 
19 The seventh question referred for a preliminary ruling is based essentially on the 
same premises as those set out in the grounds for the fifth question referred for a 
preliminary ruling and concerns the interpretation of Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of 
Directive 93/13 and, more specifically, the ability of the consumer to understand 
the specific functioning of the method used for calculating the variation in the 
interest rate. According to settled case-law, the requirement of transparency is 
satisfied if the consumer has access to rules enabling him or her to understand the 
specific functioning of the method used for calculating the change (judgment in 
Gómez del Moral Guasch, C-125/18, EU:C:2020:138). However, the contractual 
term contained in clause 5.5 of the loan agreement does not specify how the 
variation in interest rate is calculated depending on changes in the customer’s 
level of risk. The defendant will not divulge those rules under its obligation to 
maintain business secrets. 
20 The eighth question for a preliminary ruling is based essentially on the same 
premises as those set out in the grounds for the sixth question and concerns the 
interpretation of Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 5 of Directive 93/13. The requirement of 
transparency is satisfied if the consumer is in a position to understand the specific 
functioning of the method used for calculating the variation (judgments in Gómez 
del Moral Guasch and A.S.A.). The referring court has doubts as to the consumer’s 
ability to understand the specific functioning of the method used for calculating 
the variation in the interest rate pursuant to clause 5.5 of the loan agreement. 
21 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the referring court concluded that it is 
necessary in the present case to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a 
preliminary ruling.