62025CO0137_INF
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2025 –[Woluc] (
i
)
(Case C‑137/25)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Questions the reply to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Effects of a finding that a contractual term is unfair – Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency – Determination of the exchange rate between the currencies – Unfair element of a conversion clause – Article 267 TFEU – Rules requiring a lower court to comply with the assessments made by a higher court – Principle of primacy of EU law – Obligations of the national court)
1.
EU law – Primacy – National rules requiring a lower court to comply with the assessments made by a higher court – Assessments contrary to the interpretation of provisions of EU law by the Court of Justice – Not permissible
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 23-35, operative part 1)
2.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling – National rules requiring a lower court to comply with the assessments made by a higher court – Assessments contrary to the interpretation of provisions of EU law by the Court of Justice – No obligation on the lower court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 37-42, operative part 2)
Operative part
1.
The principles of effectiveness and primacy of EU law must be interpreted as precluding national rules under which the legal assessments made by an appeal court are binding on the first-instance court to which the case has been referred back for re-examination, where the latter considers that those assessments are contrary to the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts which follows from a decision of the Court of Justice, with which decision that latter court intends to comply.
2.
Article 267 TFEU and the principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court of first instance ruling on a case which has been referred back for re-examination, in respect of which national law requires that court to comply with the legal assessments made by the appeal court which decided upon that referral back, is not required to refer a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice before disapplying those assessments, if it considers them to run contrary to the clear interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 which follows from a decision of the Court of Justice.
(
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.