Case C-600/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 3(1) — Article 4 — Criteria for assessing whether a term is unfair — Term relating to the accelerated repayment of a loan agreement — Contractual dispensation from the requirement for a formal written demand)
Date: 2022-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, loan, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_2023035EN.01001601.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/16






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest
(Case C-600/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) - Article 4 - Criteria for assessing whether a term is unfair - Term relating to the accelerated repayment of a loan agreement - Contractual dispensation from the requirement for a formal written demand)
(2023/C 35/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QE

Defendant: Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus (C-421/14, EU:C:2017:60), must be interpreted as meaning that the criteria it establishes for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term, as provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular the significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract which that term causes to the detriment of the consumer, cannot be understood either as being cumulative or as being alternative, but must be understood as forming part of all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract at issue, which the national court must examine in order to assess the unfairness of a contractual term, as provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.










2.


Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that a delay of more than 30 days in the payment of an instalment of a loan may, in principle, in the light of the term and amount of the loan, constitute, in itself, sufficiently serious non-compliance with the loan agreement, as referred to in the judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus (C-421/14, EU:C:2017:60).










3.


Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as precluding, save where Article 4(2) of that directive applies, the parties to a loan agreement from inserting into that agreement a term which expressly and unequivocally provides that the accelerated repayment procedure in respect of that agreement may be triggered automatically in the event that the delay in payment of an instalment exceeds a certain period, in so far as that term has not been individually negotiated and creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.






(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.