Case C-200/21, BRD Groupe Societé Générale and Next Capital Solutions: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — TU, SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale SA, Next Capital Solutions Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Enforcement proceedings in respect of a loan agreement constituting an enforceable instrument — Objection to the enforcement — Review of unfair terms — Principle of effectiveness — National legislation not permitting the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to review the possible unfairness of a clause beyond the time limit imposed on a consumer for lodging an objection — Existence of an action under ordinary law that cannot become time-barred enabling the court hearing the substance of the case to carry out such a review and to order suspension of the enforcement — Conditions which do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law — Requirement for the consumer to pay a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)
Date: 2023-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, judicial review, limitation of legal proceedings, unfair terms of contract








C_2023216EN.01000502.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/5






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — TU, SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale SA, Next Capital Solutions Ltd
(Case C-200/21, (1) BRD Groupe Societé Générale and Next Capital Solutions)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Enforcement proceedings in respect of a loan agreement constituting an enforceable instrument - Objection to the enforcement - Review of unfair terms - Principle of effectiveness - National legislation not permitting the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to review the possible unfairness of a clause beyond the time limit imposed on a consumer for lodging an objection - Existence of an action under ordinary law that cannot become time-barred enabling the court hearing the substance of the case to carry out such a review and to order suspension of the enforcement - Conditions which do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law - Requirement for the consumer to pay a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)
(2023/C 216/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: TU, SU

Defendants: BRD Groupe Société Générale SA, Next Capital Solutions Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

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 that does not allow the court which is responsible for the enforcement proceedings and which hears, outside the 15-day period laid down by that provision, an objection to the enforcement of a contract that is concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier and constitutes an enforceable instrument, to assess, of its own motion or at the request of the consumer, the unfairness of the terms of that contract, when that consumer also has an action on the merits which enables him or her to request the court hearing that action to carry out such a review and to order the suspension of the enforcement pending the outcome of that action, in accordance with another provision of that national law, where that suspension is possible only by way of payment of a security the amount of which is likely to dissuade the consumer from bringing and continuing such an action, which it is for the referring court to verify. Where it is not possible to interpret and apply the national legislation in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of that directive, the national court hearing an objection to the enforcement of such a contract is obliged to examine of its own motion whether the terms of that contract are unfair, and, where necessary, is to disapply any national provisions which preclude such an examination.


(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.