Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:665
Date: 2019-09-05
Language of the case: Slovak
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovakia

summary of the periods and conditions for the payment of the interest and of any associated recurrent and non-recurrent charges. Therefore, the questions concerning the breakdown of each repayment showing capital amortisation, interest and, where applicable, any additional costs have no practical significance in the present case. 35 In addition, without formally claiming that the request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible, the Slovak Government and the European Commission state that, as is clear from the order for reference, the APR indicated in the credit agreement was incorrect. The Slovak Government considers that, if the APR indicated in that agreement is lower than the real effective rate, the credit is exempt from interest and charges in accordance with Article 11(1) of Law No 129/2010. In those circumstances, that penalty can be applied in the present case irrespective of any answer the Court gives to the questions referred. 36 In that regard, it should be recalled that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it and to understand the reasons for the referring court’s view that it needs answers to those questions in order to rule in the dispute before it (judgment of 8 May 2019, PI, C‑230/18, EU:C:2019:383, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). 37 In the present case, the referring court asks questions concerning the interpretation of EU legislation, namely Directive 2008/48, and, in that respect, asks for clarification of the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C‑42/15, EU:C:2016:842). 38 As regards the argument raised by the Slovak Government and the Commission that, since the APR indicated is incorrect, the national court may decide, in accordance with national legislation, that the agreement at issue is exempt from interest and charges, it should be borne in mind that the case in the main proceedings concerns a request from a consumer seeking to establish Pohotovosťs liability for infringement of the obligation to indicate in the credit agreement all the mandatory information in accordance with national legislation and Directive 2008/48. In those circumstances, the fact that the national court is able to penalise Pohotovosť for indicating the wrong APR, assuming that possibility is confirmed by that court, cannot, in any event, render completely useless, for the purposes of resolving the dispute, clarification by the Court of the requirements laid down by that directive as regards the other elements which must always be included in a consumer credit agreement, given that the directive concerns both the payment of the credit with amortisation of the capital and payment of fees and interest without amortisation of capital. 39 Accordingly, the reference for a preliminary ruling must be held to be admissible. Consideration of the questions referred The second and third questions 40 By the second and third questions, which should be considered first and together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 10(2)(h) to (j) of Directive 2008/48, in conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a credit agreement must specify the breakdown of each repayment showing, where applicable, capital amortisation, interest and other charges. 41 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind, first, that Directive 2008/48 was adopted in order both to ensure that all consumers in the European Union enjoy a high and equivalent level of protection of their interests and to facilitate the emergence of a well-functioning internal market in consumer credit (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283, paragraph 61, and of 2 May 2019, Pillar Securitisation, C‑694/17, EU:C:2019:345, paragraph 38). 42 Second, the obligation to provide information set out in Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 contributes, along with the obligations prescribed under Articles 5 and 8 of that directive, to the attainment of the objective pursued by that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, C‑377/14, EU:C:2016:283, paragraph 61). 43 Under Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48, a credit agreement is to include, in a clear and concise manner, the amount, number and frequency of payments to be made by the consumer and, where appropriate, the order in which payments will be allocated to different outstanding balances charged at different borrowing rates for the purposes of reimbursement. 44 It is apparent from Article 10(2)(i) and (3) of the directive that, where capital amortisation of a credit agreement with a fixed duration is involved, only on request by the consumer made at any time throughout the duration of the agreement is the creditor under an obligation to provide him, free of charge, with a statement of account in the form of an amortisation table. 45 In that regard, the Court has held that, in view of the clear wording of Article 10(2)(h) and (i) of Directive 2008/48, it does not impose an obligation to include in the credit agreement such a statement of account in the form of an amortisation table (judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia, C‑42/15, EU:C:2016:842, paragraph 54). 46 It should be added that any form of structured presentation of the breakdown of each repayment of credit showing capital amortisation, the interest and, where applicable, any additional costs must be considered to be an amortisation table for the purposes of Article 10(2)(i) of Directive 2008/48. 47 However, it is important to note that, under Article 10(2)(j) of that directive, if charges and interest are to be paid without capital amortisation, the credit agreement must include a statement showing the periods and conditions for the payment of the interest and of any associated recurrent and non-recurrent charges. 48 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that Directive 2008/48 does not impose an obligation to include in a credit agreement, in any particular form, a breakdown of the payments to be made by the consumer showing the repayment of the capital if it is amortised by those payments, interest and other charges due under that contract. 49 At the same time, it is important to note that, under Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, in so far as it contains harmonised provisions, Member States may not maintain or introduce in their national law provisions diverging from those laid down in that directive. 50 In that regard, the Court has already held that Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 provides for such harmonisation as regards the information which must imperatively be included in a credit agreement (judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia, C‑42/15, EU:C:2016:842, paragraph 56). 51 In those circumstances, the answer to the second and third questions is that Article 10(2)(h) to (j) of Directive 2008/48, in conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a credit agreement must specify the breakdown of each repayment showing, where applicable, capital amortisation, interest and other charges. The first question 52 By its first question, the referring court seeks to ascertain, in essence, whether Articles 10(2) and 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C‑42/15, EU:C:2016:842), are applicable to a credit agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was entered into before that judgment was handed down and before the national legislation was amended in order to comply with the interpretation adopted in that judgment. 53 In that regard it should be recalled that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, the interpretation which the Court gives to a rule of EU law clarifies and defines the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of its entry into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted may, and must, be applied by the courts even to legal relationships which arose and were established after the entry into force of that rule and before the judgment ruling on the request for interpretation, provided that in other respects the conditions for bringing a dispute relating to the application of that rule before the courts having jurisdiction are satisfied (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 December 2018, Hein, C‑385/17, EU:C:2018:1018, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited). 54 In the case in the main proceedings, it is for the referring court to interpret the national law, as applicable at the material time — which in the present case is the date the agreement concerned was entered into, namely 1 October 2015 — in so far as possible in accordance with Directive 2008/48 as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C‑42/15, EU:C:2016:842), provided that a contra legem interpretation is not required. 55 In that regard, as the Slovak Government and the Commission note in their written observations, a national court cannot validly consider that it is impossible for it to interpret a provision of national law in conformity with EU law merely because that provision has consistently been interpreted in a manner that is incompatible with EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C‑414/16, EU:C:2018:257, paragraph 73). 56 That obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law is limited by the general principles of law, particularly those of legal certainty, and that obligation cannot serve as the basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2009, Mono Car Styling, C‑12/08, EU:C:2009:466, paragraph 61). However, although the obligation to interpret national law in a manner consistent with EU law cannot serve as the basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem, national courts must change their established case-law, where necessary, if it is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with the objectives of a directive (judgment of 8 May 2019, Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego, C‑566/17, EU:C:2019:390, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited). 57 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Articles 10(2) and 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C‑42/15, EU:C:2016:842), are applicable to a credit agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was entered into before that judgment was handed down and before the national legislation was amended in order to comply with the interpretation adopted in that judgment. Costs 58 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national 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 (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 10(2)(h) to (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, in conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a credit agreement must specify the breakdown of each repayment showing, where applicable, capital amortisation, interest and other charges. 2. Articles 10(2) and 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C‑42/15, EU:C:2016:842), are applicable to a credit agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was entered into before that judgment was handed down and before the national legislation was amended in order to comply with the interpretation adopted in that judgment. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Slovak.