Case C-321/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — CDT, SA v MIMR, HRMM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Temporal effects of a judgment — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Accelerated repayment term — Partial removal of the content of an unfair term — Principle of legal certainty — Obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law)
Date: 2021-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, application of the law, case-law (EU), consumer credit, directive (EU), interpretation of the law, principle of legal certainty, unfair terms of contract








C_2021182EN.01002301.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/23






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — CDT, SA v MIMR, HRMM
(Case C-321/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Temporal effects of a judgment - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Accelerated repayment term - Partial removal of the content of an unfair term - Principle of legal certainty - Obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law)
(2021/C 182/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CDT, SA

Defendant: MIMR, HRMM

Operative part of the order







1.


EU law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as not precluding the national court from refraining from applying a provision of national law enabling it to review an unfair term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer in a situation in which that provision, which was held to be contrary to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts by judgment of 14 June 2012, Banco Español de Crédito (C-618/10, EU: C:2012:349), had not yet been the subject of a legislative amendment, in accordance with that judgment, at the time of the conclusion of that contract.










2.


The principle of legal certainty must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow a national court which has found that a contractual term is unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 to review the content of that term, with the result that that court is required to disapply it. However, Articles 6 and 7 of that directive do not preclude the national court from substituting a supplementary provision of national law for such a term, provided that the loan agreement in question cannot survive if the unfair term is removed and that the annulment of the agreement as a whole would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences, which is a matter for the national court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.