62017CO0211_INF
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2019 — Topaz
(Case C‑211/17) (
1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Promissory contract for sale and purchase drafted by the property developer and certified by a notary — Article 3(2) and Article 4(1) — Proof of the negotiated nature of the terms — Presumption — Consumer’s signature of the contract — Article 3(3) — Paragraph 1(d) to (f) and (i) of the Annex — Express forfeiture clause — Penalty clause — Unfairness — Articles 6 and 7 — Possibility for the national court to vary the term found to be unfair)
1.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred — Assessment by the national court — Presumption of relevance of the questions referred
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paras 37, 38)
2.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)
(see paras 41, 42)
3.
Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 — Clauses of a promissory contract for sale and purchase drafted in advance by a seller or supplier — Presumption that those clauses were not individually negotiated — Consumer’s signature of the contract — No rebuttal of that presumption — Contract certified by a notary and sent to a consumer before its conclusion — Irrelevant
(Council Directive 93/13, Arts 3(2) and 4(1))
(see paras 47-51, point 1 of the operative part)
4.
Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 —Meaning — Express forfeiture clause and penalty clause exclusively in favour of a seller of supplier contained in a promissory contract for sale and purchase that was drafted in advance by that seller or supplier — Included — Assessment of unfair nature by the national court
(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 3(1); Annex, point 1(d), (e) and (f))
(see paras 55, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, point 2 of the operative part)
5.
Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Finding that a term is unfair — Scope — Revision by the national court of the content of an unfair term — Not permissible — Substitution of an unfair term by a decision of a national court — Not permissible — Exception
(Council Directive 93/13, recital 24 and Art. 6)
(see paras 75-78, point 3 of the operative part)
Operative part
1.
Article 3(2) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the mere signing of a contract concluded by a consumer with a seller or supplier which provides that, by signing the contract, the consumer accepts all of the contractual terms drafted in advance by the seller or supplier, does not lead to a rebuttal of the presumption that such terms had not been individually negotiated.
2.
Article 3(3) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with the Annex thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that an express forfeiture clause and a penalty clause, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, contained in a contract concluded by a consumer with a seller or supplier that are exclusively in favour of, and were drafted in advance by, the seller or supplier, are liable to constitute unfair terms referred to in paragraph 1(d) to (f) of that Annex, which is a matter for the national court to determine.
3.
Article 6 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an express forfeiture clause and a penalty clause contained in a promissory contract for sale and purchase concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier are held to be unfair, the national court cannot remedy the invalidity of such unfair terms by substituting its own decision, unless the contract cannot continue to exist after those unfair terms are deleted and the cancellation of the contract in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly detrimental consequences.
(
1
)	OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.