Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Mikrokasa S.A. and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v XO

(Case C-779/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 3(g), Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) - Level of harmonisation - Concept of ‘non-interest credit costs’ - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Ceiling value for the total non-interest credit costs - Contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Not included)

(2020/C 215/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mikrokasa S.A. and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty

Defendant: XO

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(g), Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) 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 not precluding a provision of national legislation which lays down a calculation method regarding the maximum amount of non-interest credit costs that may be imposed on the consumer, provided that that provision does not introduce additional information obligations regarding those non-interest credit costs which go beyond those laid down in Article 10(2) of that directive.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which establishes non-interest credit costs in accordance with the ceiling value set by a provision of national legislation, without necessarily taking the costs actually incurred into account, does not fall outside the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.