CELEX: 62020CA0019
Language: en
Date: 2021-04-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-19/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku — Poland) — I.W., R.W. v Bank BPH S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Effects of a finding that a term is unfair — Mortgage loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Determination of the exchange rate between currencies — Novation agreement — Deterrent effect — Obligations of the national court — Article 6(1), and Article 7(1))

12.7.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 278/15
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku — Poland) — I.W., R.W. v Bank BPH S.A.
      (Case C-19/20) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Effects of a finding that a term is unfair - Mortgage loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Determination of the exchange rate between currencies - Novation agreement - Deterrent effect - Obligations of the national court - Article 6(1), and Article 7(1))
      (2021/C 278/20)
      Language of the case: Polish
      
         Referring court
      
      Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: I.W., R.W.
      
         Defendant: Bank BPH S.A.
      
         Third party: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to find that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, even if it has been contractually amended by those parties. Such a finding leads to the restoration of the situation that the consumer would have been in in the absence of the term found to be unfair, except where the consumer, by means of amendment of the unfair term, has waived such restoration by free and informed consent, which it is for the national court to ascertain. However, it does not follow from that provision that a finding that the original term is unfair would, in principle, lead to annulment of the contract, since the amendment of that term made it possible to restore the balance between the obligations and rights of those parties arising under the contract and to remove the defect which vitiated it;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, they do not preclude the national court from removing only the unfair element of a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer where the deterrent objective pursued by that directive is ensured by national legislative provisions governing the use of that term, provided that that element consists of a separate contractual obligation, capable of being subject to an individual examination of its unfair nature. Second, those provisions preclude the referring court from removing only the unfair element of a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer where such removal would amount to revising the content of that term by altering its substance, which it is for that court to determine;
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the consequences of a judicial finding that a term if a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair are covered by national law and the question of continuity of the contract should be assessed by the national court of its own motion in accordance with an objective approach on the basis of those provisions;
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court, finding that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, to inform the consumer, in the context of the national procedural rules after both parties have been heard, of the legal consequences entailed by annulment of the contract, irrespective of whether the consumer is represented by a professional representative.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.