do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-902/24, Herchoski: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2024 – RM and EM v Santander Bank Polska S.A.
Date: 2024-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, legal expenses, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_202501876EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1876


7.4.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2024 – RM and EM v Santander Bank Polska S.A.


(Case C-902/24, Herchoski)
                (1)

(C/2025/1876)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RM and EM

Defendant: Santander Bank Polska S.A.

Questions referred

In the context of a mortgage loan agreement declared invalid in its entirety on the grounds that it contains unfair terms without which it cannot continue in existence, must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) and the principles of effectiveness, equivalence, proportionality and legal certainty be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national provisions according to which:






1.


in an action brought by a consumer against a bank for the return of the equivalent of the payments made under a loan, the bank may raise an effective plea of set-off of its claim for repayment of the equivalent of the loan principal against the consumer’s claim;










2.


the bank may effectively raise the above plea of set-off also in the alternative, while in principle its plea is that the loan agreement is valid and does not contain unfair contractual terms;










3.


the bank may effectively demand that the consumer return the equivalent of the loan principal disbursed in the performance of an invalid agreement (as a result of which the bank’s claim becomes due), while in principle the bank’s plea is that the loan agreement is valid and does not contain unfair contractual terms;










4.


the bank may set a two-week deadline for the return by the consumer of the equivalent of the entire loan principal (as a result of which the bank’s claim for the return of the equivalent of the entire loan principal becomes due);










5.


the consumer is ordered to pay part of the legal costs to the extent that his or her action for payment was dismissed due to the plea of set-off raised by the bank being upheld?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  . OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1876/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-901/24, Falucka: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2024 – mBank S.A. v TK, DJ and JJ
Date: 2024-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer protection, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to an effective remedy, unfair terms of contract








C_202501875EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1875


7.4.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2024 – mBank S.A. v TK, DJ and JJ


(Case C-901/24, Falucka)
                (1)

(C/2025/1875)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: mBank S.A.

Defendants: TK, DJ and JJ

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) and the principles of effectiveness, proportionality, legal certainty and the right to a legal remedy be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation according to which:






1.


the limitation period for a claim brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer for the recovery of sums unduly paid under a contract which has become invalid as a result of the fact that it contains unfair contract terms is interrupted by the submission, by the consumer, of a declaration stating that he or she is aware that the invalidation of the contract will impose on him or her an obligation to return the sums received from the seller or supplier under the invalid contract,










2.


the submission of such a declaration by a consumer may justify a decision to disregard the expiry of a limitation period for a claim which the seller or supplier is entitled to bring against the consumer?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1875/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)