Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:314
Date: 2026-04-16
Language of the case: Polish

Summary C-23/25 – 1 
Case C-23/25 [Sutuska] i 
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: 
16 January 2025 
Referring court: 
Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 January 2025 
Applicant: 
AS 
Defendant: 
Bank Millennium S.A. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Declaring a loan agreement that contains unfair contractual terms to be invalid and 
awarding a sum of money as reimbursement for undue payments – Claim covering 
reimbursement of the bank’s and the consumer’s risk insurance costs. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 
93/13/EEC; Article 267 TFEU and the principles of effectiveness and 
proportionality 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-23/25 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
In the context of a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a bank 
being found to be invalid in its entirety on the grounds that the agreement contains 
unfair terms without which it cannot continue in existence, must Articles 6(1) and 
7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer 
contracts and the principles of effectiveness and proportionality be interpreted as 
precluding a judicial interpretation of national law according to which: 
– the bank is required to reimburse the consumer for the equivalent of the bank’s 
risk insurance costs incurred by the consumer, such as high loan-to-value 
insurance and bridging insurance, which provided security for the repayment of 
the loan; 
– the bank is not required to reimburse the consumer for the equivalent of the 
consumer’s risk insurance costs incurred by the consumer, such as property 
insurance and life insurance, which provided security for the repayment of the 
loan? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer 
contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) (‘Directive 93/13’): Article 6(1) and Article 7(1). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny (Law of 23 April 1964 
establishing the Civil Code, Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2024, item 
1061, as amended) (‘the CC’): Article 58(1), Article 3851(1) and (2), Article 3852, 
Article 405, Article 409, Article 410(1) and (2), Article 509(1), Article 805(1) and 
(2), Article 821, Article 828(1), Article 829, Article 831(1), (2) and (3), and 
Article 832(1) and (2). 
Ustawa z dnia 29 sierpnia 1997 r. Prawo bankowe (Banking Law of 29 August 
1997) (Dziennik Ustaw No 140, item 939, as amended) (‘the BL’): Article 69(1) 
and (2) in the wording in force on 14 March 2007, and Article 93(1). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In 2007, the parties entered into a mortgage loan agreement for the purchase of a 
residential property under construction; the loan amounted to PLN 199 027.93 
over a period of 420 months. Under the agreement, the borrower undertook to 
repay the loan together with interest and fees and commissions arising from the 
agreement (Section 1(2)) and declared that she had received the terms and 
conditions and had read and accepted them (Section 1(1)). The loan was indexed 
to the Swiss franc following the conversion of the amount disbursed in accordance 
SUTUSKA 
 
3 
with the CHF buying rate listed in the Foreign Exchange Rate Table in force at 
Bank Millennium on the disbursement date of the loan or tranche (Section 2(2) of 
the agreement). The condition for the disbursement of the loan was, inter alia, the 
submission to the bank of the original copy of an insurance policy confirming the 
conclusion by AS of a life insurance contract for a sum insured of not less than 
PLN 199 028 with an insurance company acceptable to the bank, indicating the 
bank as the sole beneficiary under the policy, as well as the assignment of rights 
under the aforementioned insurance contract in favour of the bank and the 
submission to the bank of confirmation that the insurance company acknowledged 
that assignment. Alternatively, AS could sign up for group insurance with PZU 
Życie S.A. (Section 3(3) of the agreement). The borrower was also obliged to 
submit to the bank the original copy of an insurance policy confirming the 
conclusion of property insurance against fire and other random events for a sum 
insured equal to the market value of the property, but not less than PLN 204 140, 
with an insurance company acceptable to the bank, and to assign to the bank the 
rights under the aforementioned insurance policy and submit to the bank a 
document confirming the above together with a statement from the insurer 
acknowledging the assignment of those rights, no later than 20 months from the 
date of disbursement of the loan or its first tranche, or to sign up for group 
insurance with PZU S.A. (Section 5(1) of the agreement). 
2 As security for the repayment of the loan plus interest and other costs, the 
borrower established: (1) a capped mortgage up to the amount of PLN 338 347.48 
in favour of the bank; (2) an assignment to the bank of the rights under the 
insurance policy against fire and other random events pertaining to the property on 
which the mortgage was established; and (3) an assignment to the bank of the 
rights under the borrower’s (AS’s) life insurance policy in accordance with the 
terms specified in Sections 3 and 5 of the agreement (Section 9(1) of the 
agreement). 
3 Until the bank received an extract from the land and mortgage register for the 
property with a valid entry specifying the first-ranking mortgage as being in 
favour of the bank, the loan was secured by mortgage loan insurance under a 
contract concluded by the bank with CIGNA STU S.A. (Section 9(2) of the 
agreement), in connection with which the borrower was obliged to reimburse the 
bank for the cost of the insurance premium. Additional security for the loan until 
the outstanding loan balance became equal to or less than PLN 163 312 was 
provided by high loan-to-value insurance under a contract concluded by Bank 
Millennium S.A. with CIGNA STU S.A. (Section 9(7) of the agreement). The 
borrower was obliged to reimburse the bank for insurance costs amounting to 
PLN 1 341 for the first 36-month period of insurance cover (Section 9(8) of the 
agreement). 
4 Under the ‘Terms and Conditions of Mortgage Loans Granted to Individuals at 
Bank Millennium S.A.’ in effect at the defendant bank on the date of the 
agreement, a high loan-to-value ratio was considered to be one in which the share 
of the borrower’s own funds in relation to the value of the property was below the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-23/25 
 
4  
required standard minimum, which meant less than 10% of the value of the 
property securing the loan in the case of a loan in PLN, and less than 20% of the 
value of the property securing the loan in the case of a loan in foreign 
currency/indexed to a foreign currency (Section 2(6) of the Terms and 
Conditions). The bank charged a fee resulting from the cost of high loan-to-value 
insurance by automatically debiting the borrower’s PLN account on the date on 
which the loan was disbursed for the first 36 months of the loan agreement 
(Section 7(7) of the Terms and Conditions). 
5 In the case of a foreign currency loan, the amount of each payment was calculated 
according to the bank’s foreign exchange selling rate listed in the Foreign 
Exchange Rate Table in force at the Bank on the payment date (Section 8(3) of the 
Terms and Conditions). 
6 In addition, during the lending period the borrower was required to designate the 
bank in the insurance contract as the first-ranking beneficiary in the event of the 
borrower’s death up to the amount of the borrower’s outstanding debt under the 
loan agreement, together with all commissions, fees and other costs. The borrower 
agreed not to remove the bank as the first-ranking beneficiary until the loan had 
been fully repaid. The amount of compensation remaining after the bank’s 
receivables under the loan had been repaid in full would be disbursed to the 
beneficiaries designated by the borrower in the insurance contract (Section 14(5) 
of the Terms and Conditions). 
7 The borrower was required to maintain all the insurance policies indicated in the 
loan agreement and to assign the rights under those contracts to the bank in each 
case until all the obligations under the loan agreement had been repaid in full 
(Section 14(6) of the Terms and Conditions). In the event that the borrower did 
not sign up to the insurance referred to in subsections 1 to 3 through the bank, the 
borrower would be required to submit proof of payment of premiums and the 
insurance contracts concluded for subsequent insurance periods with an insurance 
company acceptable to the bank (Section 14(7) of the Terms and Conditions). 
8 In the action brought on 17 August 2022, the applicant requested that the loan 
agreement concluded by the parties be declared invalid and that the defendant be 
ordered to pay the amounts of PLN 70 455.27 and CHF 28 068.84 plus statutory 
default interest. In its statement of defence, the defendant requested that the action 
be dismissed, indicating that the agreement was valid and did not contain any 
unfair contractual terms. 
9 On 16 January 2025, the referring court gave a partial judgment, finding that the 
agreement was invalid because the conversion clauses contained therein (for 
instance, the second sentence of Section 2(2) or Section 8(3) of the terms and 
conditions) constituted unfair contractual terms (Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13) 
without which the agreement was not capable of continuing in existence 
(Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13). The court ordered the defendant to pay the 
amounts of PLN 54 356.93 and CHF 28 068.84 plus statutory default to the 
SUTUSKA 
 
5 
applicant and dismissed the applicant’s claim for the amount of PLN 990.19 plus 
statutory default interest from the defendant as reimbursement for the arrangement 
fee. 
10 Pursuant to Article 405 of the CC, read in conjunction with Article 410(1) of the 
CC, the referring court ordered the defendant to pay to the applicant the amounts 
equivalent to the loan repayments received by the defendant from the applicant 
(loan repayments made on the basis of an invalid agreement are undue – 
Article 410(2) of the CC) together with statutory default interest on the above 
amounts, bearing in mind that prior to bringing the action, the applicant had 
requested that the defendant pay the amounts included in her statement of claim. 
The referring court dismissed the claim for payment of the arrangement fee in the 
amount of PLN 990.19, because according to Section 2(3) and Section 4(2) of the 
loan agreement, that fee was deducted from the amount of the loan disbursed to 
the applicant by the bank, and therefore the applicant did not actually make a 
payment to the defendant corresponding to that amount. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
11 In support of her claim, the applicant indicated that the loan agreement contained 
unfair contractual terms concerning the PLN/CHF exchange rate without which it 
was not capable of continuing in existence, and thus the agreement was invalid. In 
her view, all payments made, fees and commissions paid, and insurance costs 
incurred in the performance of the agreement were undue and therefore the bank 
should return their equivalent to the applicant. According to the bank, even if the 
loan agreement were annulled, this would not entail the annulment of the 
insurance contracts linked to it; moreover, the borrower was able to choose the 
insurer, and the bank transferred the insurance premiums to that insurer, and thus 
any claim for the reimbursement of those premiums should be directed against the 
insurer. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 As a result of the partial judgment of 16 January 2025, which found the agreement 
to be invalid, a ruling must be given on the remaining part of the applicant’s claim 
for payment, amounting to PLN 15 108.15 and consisting of, inter alia, amounts 
equivalent to the fees for refinancing the cost of high loan-to-value insurance, the 
fees for refinancing the cost of bridging insurance, property insurance fees and life 
insurance fees. 
13 The answer to the question referred is relevant to the outcome of the case pending 
before the referring court, because if the Court of Justice finds that it is possible to 
effectively pursue claims for reimbursement of the costs of individual insurance 
policies, the referring court will order the defendant to pay the equivalent of those 
costs, or an appropriate portion thereof, to the applicant. Otherwise, the referring 
court will dismiss the claim for payment in that regard. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-23/25 
 
6  
14 Under a mortgage loan, the primary security for the bank’s claim, and one of the 
most effective, is the mortgage established on the property for whose purchase the 
loan is granted. In view of the potential difficulties related to mortgage security, 
such as the risk of the court dismissing the application for entry in the land and 
mortgage register and thus the bank’s claim not being secured, or the destruction 
of the property as a result of a natural disaster (fire, flooding), banks are also 
demanding that additional security be established for their claims under mortgage 
loan agreements, such as insurance covering the bank’s own risk (bridging 
insurance and high loan-to-value insurance) as well as insurance covering the 
borrower’s risk (property insurance and life insurance). Bridging insurance (loan 
repayment insurance during a transitionary period) covers the risk in the period 
between the disbursement of the loan and the entry of the mortgage securing the 
loan in the land and mortgage register for the property concerned. If the court 
dismisses the application for entry in the land and mortgage register, the primary 
security for claims under the mortgage loan agreement, namely a mortgage, does 
not arise, and consequently the bank is only able to pursue those claims under 
general rules, which can be time-consuming and inefficient. That risk is prevented 
by bridging insurance, under which the insurer undertakes to pay the bank 
compensation equivalent to the amount of the bank’s claims against the borrower 
if two conditions are jointly met: the borrower defaults on the loan repayments 
and the mortgage securing the bank’s claims is not entered in the land and 
mortgage register for the property concerned. 1 On the other hand, high loan-to-
value insurance is used in cases where the loan amount corresponds to all or a 
substantial proportion (usually more than 80%) of the value of the mortgaged 
property. That insurance allows the bank to satisfy its claims in a relatively 
straightforward manner, unlike enforcement proceedings, which are time-
consuming and involve court and enforcement costs. Those two types of insurance 
cover the bank’s own risk, and the borrower is not a party to those insurance 
contracts at all. However, if the borrower defaults on the loan repayments, he or 
she may be considered at fault for the bank’s claim, in which case, after the 
insurer has paid out compensation, the bank will be entitled to a recourse claim 
and may seek to recover from the borrower the equivalent of the outstanding loan 
repayments. Thus, the only beneficiary of the insurance cover is the bank, while 
the costs of the bridging insurance and the high loan-to-value insurance are paid 
by the borrower, who receives no benefit in return other than the bank being 
willing to grant him or her a loan. 2 
15 When it comes to insuring the borrower’s (property owner’s) risk, property 
insurance covers destruction or damage to the property caused by random events 
such as fire, flooding, lightning strikes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and so forth. If 
any such event occurs, the insurer will be obliged to pay compensation 
(Article 805(1)(1) of the CC) in an amount equal to the value of the property (if it 
 
1  See Dawid Rogoziński, Ubezpieczenie jako instrument zabezpieczenia bankowych 
wierzytelności kredytowych, Wolters Kluwer, Warsaw 2024, pp. 205–207. 
2  Ibidem, pp. 187–190. 
SUTUSKA 
 
7 
is completely destroyed) or to the cost of repairing the resulting damage. 
Destruction or significant damage to the property may present significant 
difficulties for the borrower, including insolvency, as a result of which he or she 
will be unable to make the loan repayments. In such circumstances, the borrower 
is left without assets but with a debt, while the bank no longer has security for the 
loan. That risk is prevented by securing the loan through the assignment to the 
bank (Article 509(1) of the CC) of the borrower’s claim under the property 
insurance contract. The assignment serves to ensure that the bank can demand 
compensation from the insurer. It follows that the security for the loan agreement 
is not the property insurance contract per se, but rather the assignment of claims 
thereunder to the bank. Thus, in order for the security in question to be created, 
the borrower must de facto conclude two contracts: a property insurance contract 
with the insurer (Article 805 of the CC) and a claim assignment agreement with 
the bank (Article 509(1) of the CC). The borrower therefore remains a beneficiary 
of the insurance cover, and any compensation payment will benefit the borrower 
as it will reduce the borrower’s liability to the bank while generating no liability to 
the insurer. Another type of insurance that does not cover the bank’s own risk is 
life insurance. This is a personal insurance contract that provides for payment of 
the sum insured in the event of the insured’s death (Article 829(1) of the CC). The 
sum insured is paid to the beneficiary, that is to say, the person designated by the 
insured (Article 831(1) of the CC). From the bank’s point of view, the death of the 
borrower is one of the major risk factors associated with lending. The risks 
associated with inheritance cases are offset if the bank is designated as a 
beneficiary under the life insurance contract (Article 831(1) of the CC), because 
then, in the event of the borrower’s death, the bank does not have to pursue claims 
under the loan agreement against the borrower’s heirs and can easily recover the 
sum insured from the insurer. 
16 The above discussion of the characteristics of various types of insurance 
associated with loan agreements has important implications for the scope of the 
borrower’s claims against the bank if a loan agreement is invalid as a result of 
unfair contractual terms contained therein. That is because a payment made on the 
basis of an invalid agreement is undue (Article 410(2) of the CC), and the party 
that made the payment may demand its return (Article 405 of the CC, read in 
conjunction with Article 410(1) of the CC). There is no unanimity in Polish case-
law as to which loan-related insurance costs should be reimbursed by the bank. 
According to the prevailing view, the bank is obliged to reimburse the costs of the 
insurance covering the bank’s own risk, namely bridging insurance and high loan-
to-value insurance. 3 The justification for that view is that the insurance contracts 
in question are closely linked to the loan agreement – if the loan agreement had 
not been concluded, the contracts could not have come into existence either. 
Secondly, it is the bank, not the borrower, that is the party to those insurance 
 
3  See the judgments of the Sąd Apelacyjny (Court of Appeal) in Warsaw of 15 October 2021, No 
V ACa 689/18, of 6 February 2023, No I ACa 1295/22, and of 16 February 2023, No I ACa 
85/22. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-23/25 
 
8  
contracts. Thirdly, the beneficiary of the insurance cover remains the bank, not the 
borrower. 
17 On the other hand, there are controversies as to whether the borrower can claim 
the cost of the borrower’s risk insurance from the bank if the loan agreement is 
invalid. The prevailing view appears to be that the bank is not obliged to 
reimburse the equivalent of those insurance premiums, as property and life 
insurance contracts are not intrinsically linked to the loan agreement as such. 
Secondly, in the case of property insurance the beneficiary is the borrower, and in 
the case of life insurance the borrower’s heirs are the beneficiaries. At the same 
time, the insurer does not have any recourse against the borrower or the 
borrower’s heirs. Furthermore, if the amount of compensation (sum insured) is 
higher than the debt owed to the bank, the remainder of that amount is payable 
directly to the borrower (property insurance) or to the other beneficiaries (life 
insurance). Thirdly, the provisions of the loan agreement impose an obligation on 
the borrower to provide loan security (Article 69(2)(6) of the BL), but do not 
require the borrower to pay insurance premiums. That obligation arises from the 
provisions of the insurance contract itself (Article 805(1) of the CC). Thus, the 
invalidity of the loan agreement does not in itself relieve the borrower of the 
obligation to pay insurance premiums. Fourthly, the loan agreement and the life 
and property insurance contracts are separate and independent legal relationships. 
There is no basis for concluding, therefore, that the invalidity of the loan 
agreement entails the invalidity of those insurance contracts. The invalidity of a 
loan agreement only results in the invalidity of the security established in 
connection with that agreement. The security resulting from the borrower’s risk 
insurance is the assignment of rights under the property insurance contract and the 
designation of the bank as the beneficiary of the sum insured under the life 
insurance contract. The invalidity of the loan agreement does not result in the 
invalidity of the property insurance contract or the life insurance contract, but 
results in the ineffectiveness of the assignment agreement transferring the claims 
under the property insurance contract to the bank (Article 509(1) of the CC) and 
the ineffectiveness of the legal act that consists in designating the bank as the 
beneficiary of the sum insured under the life insurance contract (Article 831(1) of 
the CC). Accordingly, the borrower (the insured) remains entitled to receive 
compensation under the property insurance contract, while beneficiaries other than 
the bank remain entitled to receive the sum insured under the life insurance 
contract. Fifthly, a hypothetical finding that the property insurance contract is 
invalid would involve significant risks for the borrower himself or herself, for it 
would mean that the property owned by the borrower was uninsured from the date 
the loan agreement was concluded and remains uninsured. Thus, the occurrence of 
any random event would not entitle the borrower to claim compensation from the 
insurer. On the other hand, if the random event had already occurred and 
compensation had been paid before the loan agreement was found to be invalid, 
then the insurer could demand reimbursement for the equivalent of that 
compensation from the borrower. Sixthly, due to the fact that the actual 
beneficiary of the insurance cover under the property (life) insurance contract is 
the borrower (the borrower’s heirs), if the claim for reimbursement of property 
SUTUSKA 
 
9 
(life) insurance premiums is found to be legitimate, that claim should be directed 
not against the bank, but rather against the insurance company. That is because, in 
this case, the bank merely collects the insurance premium from the borrower and 
subsequently transfers it to the insurer without receiving anything in return. 4 The 
bank’s legal position in this case is different from its position with respect to its 
own risk insurance, in which the bank remains the insured, and the obligation to 
pay premiums to the insurer rests directly with the bank as the policyholder 
(Article 805(1) of the Civil Code), with those premiums being subsequently 
refinanced by the borrower pursuant to the relevant provisions of the loan 
agreement. Therefore, by collecting property (life) insurance premiums and 
transferring them to the insurer, the bank only acts as a kind of intermediary and 
thus does not receive any undue payments (Article 410(2) of the CC). 
18 From the perspective of European Union law, the referring court has doubts as to 
the compatibility of the above position with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 
93/13 and the principles of effectiveness and proportionality. It follows from the 
case-law of the Court of Justice that ‘the obligation for the national court to 
exclude an unfair contract term imposing the payment of amounts that prove not 
to be due entails, in principle, a corresponding restitutory effect in respect of those 
same amounts. The absence of such restitutory effect would be liable to call into 
question the dissuasive effect that Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, read in 
conjunction with Article 7(1) of that directive, is designed to attach to a finding of 
unfairness in respect of terms in contracts concluded between consumers and 
sellers or suppliers’. 5 Thus, limiting the consumer’s claims related to a contract 
containing unfair terms may undermine the restitutory effect and, consequently, 
also undermine the deterrent effect. 
19 Moreover, the Court of Justice found that ‘Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be 
interpreted as meaning that a contractual term held to be unfair must be regarded, 
in principle, as never having existed, so that it cannot have any effect on the 
consumer. Therefore, the determination by a court that such a term is unfair must, 
in principle, have the consequence of restoring the consumer to the legal and 
factual situation that he would have been in if that term had not existed’. 6 Hence, 
it can be concluded that since the property (life) insurance contract was concluded 
in connection with the conclusion of the loan agreement, and the loan agreement 
turned out to be invalid as a result of the unfair contractual terms contained 
therein, the property (life) insurance contract is also invalid. 
20 Finally, the referring court has doubts as to whether a possible finding that the 
property and life insurance contracts are invalid would be compatible with the 
 
4  See Dawid Rogoziński, op. cit., p. 286. 
5  See the judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016, Gutièrrez 
Naranjo, Joined Cases C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15, paragraphs 62–63. 
6  See the judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016, Gutièrrez 
Naranjo, Joined Cases C‑154/15, C‑307/15 and C‑308/15, paragraph 61. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-23/25 
 
10  
principle of proportionality. Indeed, it is possible to interpret the provisions in 
such a way that the invalidity of the loan agreement does not result in the 
invalidity of the insurance contracts, but only in the ineffectiveness of the 
assignment of claims under the property insurance contract and the ineffectiveness 
of the legal act that consists in designating the bank as the beneficiary of the sum 
insured under the life insurance contract. On that interpretation, although the 
borrower would not be able to recover the insurance premiums, he or she would 
be entitled to insurance cover at all times and therefore could claim compensation 
to the exclusion of the bank, while in the case of life insurance, beneficiaries other 
than the bank would be entitled to the sum insured. On the other hand, an 
interpretation resulting in a finding that the insurance contracts at issue are null 
and void might appear too far-reaching and thus contrary to the principle of 
proportionality, especially as the practical effect would be to completely eliminate 
ex tunc the insurance cover enjoyed by the borrower (property insurance) or by a 
beneficiary other than the bank (life insurance). 
21 However, the above arguments do not seem to apply to the issue of reimbursement 
for the bank’s own insurance costs. Indeed, it is not logically possible to conclude 
that the invalidity of the loan agreement results in the invalidity of the bridging 
and high loan-to-value insurance contracts, as the borrower is not a party to those 
insurance contracts at all. Consequently, it is sufficient to conclude that all the 
provisions of the loan agreement are invalid, including those that require the 
borrower to bear the costs of the bank’s own risk insurance, and thus the borrower 
can claim reimbursement of those costs from the bank. Such a solution appears to 
be in line with the principles of effectiveness and proportionality. In contrast, 
depriving the consumer of the right to claim reimbursement of the costs in 
question could infringe Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13.