Case C-410/23, Pielatak: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – I. SA v S. J. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 2(b) – Concept of consumer – Dual-purpose contract – Farmer concluding a contract for the purchase of a product intended for both agricultural and domestic use – Internal market for electricity – Directive 2009/72/EC – Article 3(7) – Annex I, paragraph 1(a) – Household customer – Contract for the supply of electricity for a fixed period at a fixed price – Contractual penalty for early termination – National legislation limiting the amount of that penalty to the costs and damages resulting from the contract)
Date: 2025-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural holding, consumer protection, electrical energy, electricity supply, farmer, household, price of energy, purchase, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_202503376EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3376


30.6.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – I. SA v S. J.


(Case C-410/23,
                (1)
Pielatak)
                (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Dual-purpose contract - Farmer concluding a contract for the purchase of a product intended for both agricultural and domestic use - Internal market for electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3(7) - Annex I, paragraph 1(a) - Household customer - Contract for the supply of electricity for a fixed period at a fixed price - Contractual penalty for early termination - National legislation limiting the amount of that penalty to the ‘costs and damages resulting from the contract’)
(C/2025/3376)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: I. SA

Defendant: S. J.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of recital 17 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, covers a farmer who concludes a contract for the purchase of electricity which is intended both for his or her agricultural holding and his or her domestic use, where the trade, business or professional purpose of that contract is so limited as not to be predominant in the overall context of that contract.










2.


Article 3(7) of, and Annex I, paragraph 1(a), to, Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, read in the light of recital 51 of Directive 2009/72,
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, in the event of early termination, by a household customer, of an electricity supply contract concluded for a fixed term and at a fixed price, the latter is required to pay the contractual penalty stipulated in the contract, provided that that legislation, first, ensures that such a contractual penalty is fair, clear, communicated in advance and freely consented to, and, second, provides for the possibility of administrative or judicial redress, in the context of which the authority before which the matter is brought may assess the proportionality of that penalty in the light of all the circumstances of the case and, where appropriate, impose its reduction or annulment. That interpretation is without prejudice to the rights that such a customer could, as the case may be, derive from EU consumer protection legislation, in particular from Directive 93/13, if that customer is, in addition, covered by the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the latter directive.






(1)  OJ C C/2024/2911.

(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/2025/3376/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)