1. 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

(see para. 21)

2. 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation – Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation – Retroactive effect

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see para. 24)

3. 

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need to ensure that directives are effective – Obligations of national courts – Obligation of conforming interpretation – Scope – Interpretation of national law contra legem – Precluded

(Arts 4(3) TEU and Art. 288 TFEU)

(see paras 27-29)

4. 

Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Finding that a term is unfair – Scope – National legislation allowing a national court which finds that an unfair term is void to revise its content – Judgment of the Court in which it finds that that legislation is incompatible with Directive 93/13 – Legislation which has not yet been amended when the contract was concluded – Inapplicability of that provision for the national court – Whether permissible – Breach of the principle of legal certainty – Absence – Obligation on the national court to verify conforming interpretation

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 6(1))

(see paras 30-33, operative part 1)

5. 

Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Finding that a term is unfair – Scope – National legislation allowing a national court which finds that an unfair term is void to revise its content – Not permissible

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 6(1))

(see paras 36, 40, 41)

6. 

Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Declaration that a clause is unfair in part – Scope – Maintaining the part of the term that is not unfair, entailing an amendment of its content – Not permissible – Replacement of an unfair term with a provision of national law by the national court – Whether permissible – Conditions

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

(see paras 42-46, and operative part 2)

1. 

EU law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as not precluding the national court from refraining from applying a provision of national law enabling it to review an unfair term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer in a situation in which that provision, which was held to be contrary to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts by judgment of 14 June 2012, Banco Español de Crédito (C‑618/10, EU: C:2012:349), had not yet been the subject of a legislative amendment, in accordance with that judgment, at the time of the conclusion of that contract.

2. 

The principle of legal certainty must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow a national court which has found that a contractual term is unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 to review the content of that term, with the result that that court is required to disapply it. However, Articles 6 and 7 of that directive do not preclude the national court from substituting a supplementary provision of national law for such a term, provided that the loan agreement in question cannot survive if the unfair term is removed and that the annulment of the agreement as a whole would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences, which is a matter for the national court to determine.