Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CA0779

    Case C-779/18: 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 (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)

    IO C 215, 29.6.2020, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    29.6.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 215/15


    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

    1.

    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.

    2.

    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.


    Top