Case C‑421/14

Banco Primus SA

v

Jesús Gutiérrez García

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 de Santander)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Unfair terms — Mortgage loan agreements — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Limitation period — Function of the national courts — Res judicata)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 January 2017

Consumer protection—Unfair terms in consumer contracts—Directive 93/13—Finding that a term is unfair—Scope—Obligation for the national court, of its own motion, to draw all the consequences which result from that finding—Professional who has not applied the term in question and acted in accordance with national law—Irrelevant

Consumer protection—Unfair terms in consumer contracts—Directive 93/13—Mortgage enforcement proceedings—No possibility for the national court to re-examine, of its own motion, the unfair nature of the terms of a loan agreement which have already been adjudicated on in a decision which has become res judicata—Lawfulness—Limits

Consumer protection—Unfair terms in consumer contracts—Directive 93/13—Mortgage enforcement proceedings—Proceedings on-going at the time of adoption of a provisional national provision laying day a time limit for opposing the enforcement—Time limit triggered on the day following the publication of that legislation—Unlawful

Consumer protection—Unfair terms in consumer contracts—Directive 93/13—Obligation for the national court to determine of its own motion whether a term in a contract that it is examining is unfair—Scope

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer—Questions bearing no relation to the subject matter of the case in the main proceedings—Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

See the text of the decision. (see paras 29, 30, 33, 56)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 40, 41, 51)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 43, 51)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 46)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 48)

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as the Fourth Transitional Provision of Ley 1/2013, de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social (Law 1/2013 on the protection of mortgagors, restructuring of debt and social rent) of 14 May 2013, which, as regards mortgage enforcement proceedings which were instituted before the date of entry into force of the law of which that provision forms part and which were not concluded at that date, imposes a time limit of one month on consumers, calculated from the day following the publication of that law, within which to object to enforcement on the basis of the alleged unfairness of contractual terms. (see para. 54, operative part 1)

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law, such as that resulting from Article 207 of Ley 1/2000, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 on the Civil Procedure Code), of 7 January 2000, as amended by Ley 1/2013, de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social (Law 1/2013 on the protection of mortgagors, restructuring of debt and social rent), of 14 May 2013, then by Real Decreto-Ley 7/2013, de medidas urgentes de naturaleza tributaria, presupuestaria y de fomento de la investigación, el desarrollo y la innovación (Decree-Law 7/2013 on urgent fiscal and budgetary measures and promoting research, development and innovation), of 28 June 2013, then by Real Decreto-Ley 11/2014, de medidas urgentes en materia concursal (Decree-Law 11/2014 on urgent measures in the area of bankruptcy), of 5 September 2014, which prohibits national courts from examining of their own motion the unfairness of contractual terms where a ruling has already been given on the lawfulness of the terms of the contract, taken as a whole, with regard to that directive in a decision which has become res judicata. By contrast, where there are one or more contractual terms the potential unfair nature of which has not been examined during an earlier judicial review of the contract in dispute which has been closed by a decision which has become res judicata, Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, before which a consumer has properly lodged an objection, is required to assess the potential unfairness of those terms, whether at the request of the parties or of its own motion where it is in possession of the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose. (see paras 49, 52, 54, operative part 2)

Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that: – the examination of the potential unfairness of a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer requires it to be determined whether that term causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under a contract to the detriment of the consumer. That examination must be carried out in the light of national rules which, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, are applicable, the means which the consumer has at his disposal under national law to bring an end to the use of that type of term, the nature of the goods or services covered by the contract at issue and all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract; – where the national court considers that a contractual term relating to the calculation of ordinary interest, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of that directive, it is required to examine whether that term is unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the directive. In the context of that examination, it is the duty of the referring court, inter alia, to compare the method of calculation of the rate of ordinary interest laid down in that term and the actual sum resulting from that rate with the methods of calculation generally used, the statutory interest rate and the interest rates applied on the market at the date of conclusion of the agreement at issue in the main proceedings for a loan of a comparable sum and term to those of the loan agreement under consideration; and – as regards the assessment by a national court of the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, it is for the referring court to examine whether the right of the seller or supplier to call in the totality of the loan is conditional upon the non-compliance by the consumer with an obligation which is of essential importance in the context of the contractual relationship in question, whether that right is provided for in cases in which such non-compliance is sufficiently serious in the light of the term and amount of the loan, whether that right derogates from the applicable common law rules, where specific contractual provisions are lacking, and whether national law provides for adequate and effective means enabling the consumer subject to such a term to remedy the effects of the loan being called in. (see paras 64-67, operative part 3)