62023CJ0143_RES
Case C‑143/23
KIandFAvVolkswagen Bank GmbHandMercedes-Benz Bank AG
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany))
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 October 2025
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Credit agreement for the purchase of a motor vehicle – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 10(2)(l) – Requirements relating to the information to be included in the agreement – Obligation to specify the late-payment interest rate – Article 14(1) – Right of withdrawal – Commencement of the withdrawal period in the absence of any reference to the late-payment interest rate – Abusive nature of the exercise of the right of withdrawal – Consequences of exercising the right of withdrawal in the context of a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement – Consumer’s obligations towards the creditor – Method of calculating compensation for loss of value of the financed asset – Article 14(3)(b) – Payment of interest following withdrawal from a credit agreement linked to a contract for the supply of goods)
Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48 – Requirements as to the information to be included in the agreement – Obligation to state the late-payment interest rate as a specific percentage – No information regarding the late-payment interest rate in the agreement or subsequent communication of that rate to the consumer – Non-triggering of the withdrawal period
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, recitals 7, 9 and 31 and Arts 10(2)(l) and 14(1), second subpara., (b))
(see paragraphs 66-75, operative part 1)
Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48 – Requirements as to the information to be included in the agreement – Obligation to state the late-payment interest rate as a specific percentage – No information regarding the late-payment interest rate in the agreement or subsequent communication of that rate to the consumer – Non-triggering of the withdrawal period – Consumer’s exercise of his or her right of withdrawal abusive due to his or her behaviour between the conclusion of the agreement and withdrawal – None
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Arts 10(2)(l) and 14(1))
(see paragraphs 78, 79, 82-85, operative part 2)
Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48 – Right of withdrawal – Consequences of withdrawing from a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement – Compensation for loss of value payable by the consumer to the creditor upon return of the vehicle – Calculation method – National case-law providing for the deduction from the vehicle’s sale price of the purchase price paid by the dealer at the time of the vehicle’s return – Not permissible – Condition
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Arts 3(n), 10(2)(l) and 14(1))
(see paragraphs 89-100, operative part 3)
Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48 – Right of withdrawal – Consequences of withdrawing from a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement – Complete harmonisation of the rules relating to those consequences – None
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, recital 35 and Arts 2(1), (3)(n) and 14(3)(b))
(see paragraphs 103-110, operative part 4)
Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48 – Right of withdrawal – Consequences of withdrawing from a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement – National legislation laying down an obligation for the consumer to pay the creditor interest for the period between the disbursement of funds and the return of the vehicle – Whether permissible
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, recital 8 and Art. 14(1) and (3)(b))
(see paragraphs 113-119, operative part 5)
Résumé
Hearing a request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Regional Court, Ravensburg, Germany), the Court rules, with regard to Directive 2008/48, (
1
) on the starting point of the withdrawal period for, and on the possibility of classifying as abusive the exercise by a consumer of the right to withdraw from, a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement. It also examines the consequences of exercising that right and specifies, in particular, the obligations incumbent on the consumer towards the creditor.
In accordance with their requests of 1 March 2019 and 30 November 2017, KI and FA entered into credit agreements with Mercedes Benz Bank and Volkswagen Bank, respectively (the ‘banks in question’), for the purchase of a motor vehicle for private use. Acting as credit intermediaries for the banks in question, the car dealers from whom the vehicles were purchased received the loan amounts directly. None of the credit agreements stated, as a percentage figure, the late-payment interest rate applicable at the time they were concluded.
After paying deposits and making monthly loan repayments, KI and FA indicated, by letters of 31 October 2019 and 20 July 2020, that they were exercising their right of withdrawal in respect of the credit agreements in question. They considered that the withdrawal period provided for by national law had not yet begun on the grounds that those agreements did not state the late-payment interest rate as a specific percentage.
KI and FA brought actions before the referring court seeking reimbursement of the monthly loan repayments made up to the date of their withdrawal from the credit agreements in question and of the deposit paid to the dealer, as well as a declaration that they were not liable for any sums under those agreements, whether in respect of the borrowed capital or interest, due to that withdrawal. For his part, KI also claimed that he did not owe any compensation for the depreciation of the vehicle purchased.
The referring court questions, first of all, whether, where the borrower exercises his or her right of withdrawal in respect of a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement, the creditor may claim compensation for the loss in value of that vehicle and, if so, for what amount. Next, it questions the starting point of the withdrawal period where the late-payment interest rate applicable is not stated at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreements in question. Furthermore, the referring court has doubts as to whether the consumer’s exercise of his or her right of withdrawal can be considered abusive when he or she continues to use the vehicle until the national courts have ruled on the validity of the withdrawal and refuses to pay compensation for the loss in value of the vehicle resulting from that use. Lastly, it questions whether Directive 2008/48 has completely harmonised the obligation for the borrower to pay interest on the capital, including where the credit financed is linked to a contract for the purchase of goods. If the answer is in the negative, the referring court questions whether it is compatible with that directive for the borrower, after exercising his or her right of withdrawal in respect of a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement, to be required to pay the interest provided for in that credit agreement for the period between the payment, to the seller of the vehicle, of the amounts due under the loan and the date of the return of that vehicle to the creditor or seller.
Findings of the Court
In the first place, ruling on the starting point of the withdrawal period, (
2
) the Court recalls that that period is to begin only from the day on which, in particular, the information referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2008/48 has been received by the consumer. (
3
) Thus, where information provided by the creditor to the consumer under Article 10(2) of that directive proves to be incomplete or incorrect, that period is to begin only if the incomplete or incorrect nature of that information is not such as to affect the consumer’s ability to assess the extent of the rights and obligations conferred on him or her by the directive in question. However, a situation characterised by the provision of incomplete or incorrect information must be distinguished from a situation in which there has been a failure to provide the required information.
With regard to the stating in a credit agreement of the late-payment interest rate applicable at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, the Court points out that the requirement to state that rate as a specific percentage (
4
) enables consumers to be aware of the consequences of any delay in payment. The stating of that interest rate as a specific percentage appears to be essential in order for consumers to assess the extent of their contractual commitment, in particular with regard to the financial consequences that may result from a failure to fulfil, or a delay in fulfilling, their payment obligation. That information is therefore likely to influence not only the consumer’s decision to enter into the agreement, but also their ability to organise the repayment of the loan. Consequently, the Court rules that the withdrawal period provided for in Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48 is not to begin where the credit agreement does not state, as a specific percentage, the late-payment interest rate applicable at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, and that this is the case as long as that information has not been duly communicated to the consumer.
In the second place, the Court examines the question of whether there may have been abusive exercise, by the consumer, of the right of withdrawal. After pointing out that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends, it emphasises that the creditor cannot legitimately claim that, because a considerable length of time has elapsed between the conclusion of the agreement and the exercise of the right of withdrawal, the consumer has abused that right, where some of the mandatory information listed in Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 was not included in the credit agreement and, further, was not duly communicated at a later stage, irrespective of whether that consumer was unaware of the existence of his or her right of withdrawal. In those circumstances, a creditor cannot claim that the exercise of the right of withdrawal was abusive where the credit agreement does not state, as a specific percentage, the late-payment interest rate applicable at the time of its conclusion, which is part of that mandatory information. In such a case, the withdrawal period has not begun. Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48 precludes the creditor from validly claiming that there has been abusive exercise, by the consumer, of the right of withdrawal due to that consumer’s behaviour between the conclusion of the agreement and the exercise of the right of withdrawal, or even after that exercise, where a statement, as a specific percentage, of the late-payment interest rate applicable at the time of the conclusion of that agreement was not included in the credit agreement and, further, was not duly communicated at a later stage.
In the third place, the Court considers that Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, precludes national case-law according to which, where a consumer exercises his or her right of withdrawal in respect of a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement, the amount of compensation for loss of value owed by that consumer to the creditor when the vehicle is returned is calculated by deducting from the sale price charged by the dealer at the time of the consumer’s purchase of the vehicle the purchase price paid by the dealer at the time of the return of that vehicle, provided that that calculation method includes factors unrelated to the use of the vehicle by that consumer.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court emphasises that Directive 2008/48 does not contain any provisions governing the consequences of the exercise, by the consumer, of his or her right of withdrawal in respect of a credit agreement linked to a contract for the supply of goods. It is therefore for the Member States to regulate questions concerning the return of the goods financed by the credit or any related questions, provided that the national legislation and case-law governing the consequences of the exercise of the right of withdrawal do not undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of that right to such an extent as to make its exercise impossible or excessively difficult in practice. That would be the case if the amount of compensation for loss of value of goods, payable by the consumer to the creditor when the goods are returned, were to appear disproportionate in relation to the purchase price of those goods.
In that context, the Court specifies that the assessment of the proportionality of the compensation that may be claimed from the consumer following the exercise of his or her right of withdrawal must be carried out on the basis of a detailed analysis, taking into account the specific terms and conditions of use of the goods concerned and the condition of the vehicle at the time of its return, in particular with regard to any mechanical damage or aesthetic deterioration resulting from such use. In that regard, the mere fact that the compensation thus determined may be high in relation to the purchase price of the vehicle by the consumer cannot, in itself, establish that that compensation is disproportionate and that the method of calculating it makes the exercise of the right of withdrawal impossible or excessively difficult in practice. That is the case provided that the amount of that compensation objectively reflects the actual depreciation of the vehicle resulting from its use by the consumer and its condition at the time of its return.
By contrast, a calculation method based solely on the difference in price between the purchase and resale of the vehicle, which includes factors unrelated to the use made thereof, such as commercial margins and resale costs, determined unilaterally by the car dealer, as well as value added tax, does not allow for an assessment of the depreciation of that vehicle resulting from its use by the consumer. Furthermore, inasmuch as those factors apply even where the vehicle has not been registered or used prior to the exercise of the right of withdrawal, that method appears to impose on the consumer a burden that results exclusively from the exercise of his or her right of withdrawal. In those circumstances, such a method of calculating compensation for the loss of value of goods is liable to result in an amount of compensation that is disproportionate in relation to the purchase price of those goods and to make the exercise of the right of withdrawal impossible or excessively difficult in practice.
In the fourth place, the Court finds that Directive 2008/48 does not completely harmonise the rules relating to the legal consequences that may arise from the consumer’s exercise of his or her right to withdraw from a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement. In that regard, it points out that that directive does not contain any provisions governing the consequences, for a contract for the supply of goods, of the consumer’s exercise of that right in respect of a credit agreement linked to that contract for the supply of goods. More specifically, Directive 2008/48 does not specify the fate of the financed asset or the possible interactions between the linked credit agreement and the vehicle purchase agreement. (
5
) Furthermore, no provision of that directive deals with the situation in which the right of withdrawal exercised by the consumer concerns the linked credit agreement itself. In the absence of specific EU rules governing the matter, the rules implementing the consumer protection provided for by Directive 2008/48 are a matter for the domestic legal order of the Member States in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States. It is therefore for the Member States, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to specify the effects of the exercise of that right in the context of a credit agreement linked to a contract for the supply of goods, including, where applicable, the obligation to pay the interest accrued on the capital borrowed and the terms and conditions thereof.
In the fifth and last place, the Court states that Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48 does not preclude national legislation under which, after exercising his or her right to withdraw from a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement, the consumer is required to pay the interest provided for in that credit agreement for the period between the payment of the loan proceeds to the seller of the financed vehicle and the date of the return of the vehicle to the creditor or seller. The first sentence of Article 14(3)(b) of Directive 2008/48 aims to strike a balance between consumer protection and the free movement of credit offers. In those circumstances, the obligation that may be imposed on the consumer to pay interest calculated on the basis of the actual period during which the funds were made available serves to maintain the contractual balance and prevents one party, by exercising its right of withdrawal, from obtaining an undue advantage to the detriment of the other party, thus ensuring a fair distribution of the costs and benefits arising from the performance, albeit partial and temporary, of the credit agreement. First, the creditor has temporarily relinquished the amount of credit paid to the seller of the vehicle for the benefit of the consumer, which represents a tie-up of funds and a financial risk for the creditor. Secondly, the interest accrued on the borrowed capital does not represent a penalty, but rather the consideration for access to credit, which is, in principle, a paid transaction, regardless of whether the right of withdrawal is exercised.
(
1
)	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 (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
(
2
)	As provided for in Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48.
(
3
)	Point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48.
(
4
)	In accordance with Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48.
(
5
)	First sentence of Article 14(3)(b) of Directive 2008/48.