Case C-509/24, Investcapital: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 3 de Arucas – Spain) – Investcapital Ltd v M.H.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 6(1) – Article 7(1) – Contract concerning a bank account – Order for payment procedure – Review of the court’s own motion of whether contractual terms are unfair – Proposal by the court to reduce the claim by the amount corresponding to the application of a term considered to be unfair – Acceptance by the seller or supplier and possibility to claim that amount in subsequent proceedings – Principle of effectiveness – Participation of the consumer in the review of whether a contractual term is unfair)
Date: 2025-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, claim, consumer protection, injunction, judicial review, unfair terms of contract








C_202600427EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/427


2.2.2026






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 3 de Arucas – Spain) – Investcapital Ltd v M.H.S.


(Case C-509/24,
                (1)
Investcapital)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 6(1) - Article 7(1) - Contract concerning a bank account - Order for payment procedure - Review of the court’s own motion of whether contractual terms are unfair - Proposal by the court to reduce the claim by the amount corresponding to the application of a term considered to be unfair - Acceptance by the seller or supplier and possibility to claim that amount in subsequent proceedings - Principle of effectiveness - Participation of the consumer in the review of whether a contractual term is unfair)
(C/2026/427)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 3 de Arucas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Investcapital Ltd

Defendant: M.H.S.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness,
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides, first, that a court hearing an application by a seller or supplier for an order for payment against a consumer may make a proposal for a reduction in the amount of the claim, which excludes any amounts arising from the application of a contractual term which it considered to be unfair, without being able to find, on that basis, that it is void and, second, that that seller or supplier, after accepting that proposal, has the possibility of bringing other legal proceedings in order to recover, from that consumer, the amount of the claim rejected by that court, provided that the consumer can obtain, in other legal proceedings, a declaration that the contractual term considered to be unfair is void.










2.


Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not provide for the consumer to participate in the review, by the court hearing an application for an order for payment brought by a seller or supplier against that consumer, of the possible unfairness of the contractual terms on which that application is based or which determine the amount of the claim being sought, provided that, first, the order for payment procedure does not have the force of res judicata and, second, the principle of audi alteram partem is guaranteed in any subsequent proceedings between the consumer and that seller or supplier in relation to the same claims made by the latter.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/6907.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/427/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)