1. 

Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Term setting a variable interest rate — Requirement of transparency — Seller or supplier exempt from the duty to provide the consumer with information on the previous fluctuations of the credit reference index, according to national legislation and case-law — Whether permissible — Condition

(Council Directive 93/13, Arts 3 and 5)

(see paras 24-30, operative part 1)

2. 

Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 — Term setting a variable interest rate — Assessment of unfair nature by the national court — National legislation and case-law considering the absence of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier as a precondition for that assessment — Not permissible — A matter for the national court to ascertain

(Council Directive 93/13, Recital 16 and Arts 3(1) and 5)

(see paras 32-43, operative part 2)

3. 

Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Finding that a term is unfair — Scope — Revision by the national court of the content of an unfair term — Not permissible — Substitution of a legal index for an unfair term fixing a reference index for the calculation of variable interest on a loan — Indexes producing the same effects — Whether permissible — Conditions

(Council Directive 93/13, Arts 6(1) and 7(1))

(see paras 45-49, operative part 3)

4. 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 51-56, operative part 3)

1. 

Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the requirement of transparency of contractual terms in the context of a mortgage loan must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation and case-law which exempt the seller or supplier from providing to the consumer, at the time of conclusion of a mortgage loan agreement, information related to the previous fluctuations of the reference index over at least the previous two years by means of a comparison with at least one different index such as the Euribor index, provided that that national legislation and case-law nevertheless enable the court to satisfy itself that the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect was able, in the light of the publicly available and accessible information and, where appropriate, the information provided by the seller or supplier, to understand the specific functioning of the method used for calculating the reference index and thus evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term on his or her financial obligations.

2. 

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and case-law which consider an absence of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier to be a necessary precondition for any review of the content of a non-transparent clause in a consumer contract. It is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the main proceedings, the seller or supplier must be regarded as having acted in good faith by selecting an index provided for by law, and whether the term incorporating such an index is such as to create a significant imbalance, to the detriment of the consumer, between the rights and obligations of the parties arising under the contract.

3. 

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding the national court, where an unfair term setting a reference index for calculating the variable interest of a loan is null and void, from replacing that index with a statutory index applicable in the absence of an agreement to the contrary between the parties to the contract, where those two indices produce the same effects, provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 67 of the judgment of 3 March 2020, Gómez del Moral Guasch (C‑125/18, EU:C:2020:138) are met.

4. 

The sixteenth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Ibiza (Court of First Instance No 2, Ibiza, Spain) is manifestly inadmissible.