Case C-365/23, Arce: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) – Latvia) – SIA A v C, D, E (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Scope – Article 2(b) – Article 3(1) – Article 4(2) – Article 5 – Article 6(1) – Article 8a – Pre-formulated standard contract – Contract between a supplier providing services for development and career support for sportspersons and a rising star sportsman of minor age represented by his parents – Term establishing the obligation to pay to that supplier remuneration equal to 10 % of the income received by that sportsman over the following 15 years – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 17 and 24 – Right to property – Rights of the child)
Date: 2025-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: children's rights, consumer protection, economic consequence, income, ownership, provision of services, remuneration of work, sport, unfair terms of contract, young person








C_202502629EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2629


19.5.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) – Latvia) – SIA ‘A’ v C, D, E


(Case C-365/23,
                (1)
Arce
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Article 2(b) - Article 3(1) - Article 4(2) - Article 5 - Article 6(1) - Article 8a - Pre-formulated standard contract - Contract between a supplier providing services for development and career support for sportspersons and a ‘rising star’ sportsman of minor age represented by his parents - Term establishing the obligation to pay to that supplier remuneration equal to 10 % of the income received by that sportsman over the following 15 years - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 17 and 24 - Right to property - Rights of the child)
(C/2025/2629)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘A’
         

Defendants: C, D, E

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
must be interpreted as meaning that a contract for services for development and career support for a sportsperson, concluded between, on the one hand, a supplier carrying on an activity in the field of sports development and, on the other hand, a ‘rising star’ of minor age, represented by his or her parents, who, when that contract was concluded, was not yet employed in the field of sport and, therefore, had the status of consumer, falls within the scope of that directive.










2.


Article 4(2) and Article 8 of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term stipulating that, for the provision of services for development and career support in a particular sport, specified in the contract, the young sportsperson undertakes to pay remuneration equal to 10 % of the income received over the 15 years following the conclusion of that contract falls within the scope of that provision. Consequently, a national court may, in principle, assess, in the light of Article 3 of that directive, the unfairness of that term only if it reaches the conclusion that it is not drafted in plain, intelligible language. However, those provisions do not preclude national legislation which authorises a judicial review of the unfairness of that term even where it is drafted in plain, intelligible language.










3.


Article 5 of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which merely stipulates that, in exchange for the provision of services for development and career support for a sportsperson, that sportsperson undertakes to pay the service provider remuneration equal to 10 % of the income received over the 15 years following the conclusion of that contract, without all the information necessary to enable him or her to assess the financial consequences of the commitment undertaken by him or her being communicated to the consumer before the conclusion of the contract, is not drafted in plain, intelligible language within the meaning of that provision.










4.


Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which stipulates that, in exchange for the provision of services for development and career support for a sportsperson, a young sportsperson undertakes to pay remuneration equal to 10 % of the income received over the 15 years following the conclusion of that contract does not create a significant imbalance, to the detriment of the consumer, between the parties’ rights and obligations, within the meaning of that provision, merely because that term does not establish a link between the value of the service provided and its cost to the consumer. The existence of such an imbalance must be assessed in the light, in particular, of the rules applicable in national law in the absence of an agreement between the parties, fair and equitable market practices on the date of conclusion of the contract in the matter of remuneration in the field of sport concerned and all the circumstances attending the conclusion of that contract, as well as all the other terms of that contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.










5.


Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as precluding a national court which has found that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, from reducing the amount payable by the consumer to the extent of the costs actually incurred by the seller or supplier in the performance of that contract.










6.


Directive 93/13, read in the light of Article 17(1) and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contractual term stipulates that, in exchange for the provision of services for development and career support for a sportsperson, a consumer undertakes to pay remuneration equal to 10 % of the income received over the 15 years following the conclusion of that contract, the fact that the consumer was a minor at the time that contract was concluded and that that contract was concluded by the minor’s parents on behalf of the minor is relevant for the purposes of assessing whether that term is unfair.






(1)  
            OJ C 296, 21.8.2023.

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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2629/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)