Case C‑632/17

Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności (PKO) Bank Polski S.A.

v

Jacek Michalski

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 2008/48/EC — Order for payment procedure based on bank ledger excerpts — Impossible for the court, in the absence of an action brought by a consumer, to examine the unfairness of the contractual terms)

Summary — Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 28 November 2018

1. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Obligation for the national court to examine of its own motion whether a term in a contract submitted to it for assessment is unfair — Scope — Limits — Inapplicable if the legal and factual elements necessary for its review are unavailable

   (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 7(1))

2. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directives 93/13 and 2008/48 — Means to prevent the use of unfair terms — Order for payment procedure based on a bank ledger excerpt — Court unable to ascertain the unfairness of contractual terms — Unlawful

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Art. 10; Council Directive 93/13, Art. 7(1))

3. Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48 — Requirements as to the information to be mentioned in an agreements — Subject-matter — National court’s obligation to examine of its own motion compliance with the requirements and to establish the consequences — Limits

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Recital 31 and Art. 10)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 36, 38)

2.  Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 10 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the issue of an order for payment, based on a bank ledger excerpt, as evidence of the existence of a debt arising from a consumer credit agreement where the court dealing with an application for an order for payment does not have the power to examine whether the terms of that agreement are unfair or to ensure, in the course of that examination, that the information referred to in Article 10 is made available if the detailed rules for exercising the right to lodge an objection against such an order do not enable observance of the rights which the consumer derives from that directive to be ensured.

3.  Therefore, detailed procedural rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that, on one hand, they require consumers to adduce, within two weeks of service of the order for payment, the factual and legal elements that enable the court to carry out the assessment and, on the other hand, penalise them in the way in which the legal costs are calculated, give rise to a significant risk that the consumers concerned will not lodge the objection required (judgment of 13 September 2018, Profi Credit Polska, C‑176/17, EU:C:2018:711, paragraphs 69 and 70).

   (see paras 48, 53, operative part)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 51)