Facts
Spanish dispute between the consumer MF and Bank was afraid with the mortgage debt agreement. MF has brought an action for annulment of the cost condition due to its unfair nature. In this lawsuit, MF besides requests reimbursement of the amount corresponding to half of the notarial fees and the full costs associated with entry in the land register, together with statutory interest. The Bank maintains that the claim for reimbursement of this amount has expired.
The referring court has doubts as to the anticipation of a different treatment under Spanish law, in the light of the rule of equivalence, first of all, of a request for annulment of a condition to be unfair and secondly of a request based on the restitution effects of specified a finding.
TS Position
Principle of equivalence means that rules for the application of Union law, subject to the interior legal order of the associate States under the rule of their procedural autonomy, may not be little beneficial from the rules governing akin interior situations ( TS judgement of 17.5.2022, Unija Banco, C-869/19, Legalis, paragraph 22).
According to the case law of the TS, Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5.4.1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L L 1993, p. No. 95, p. 29) should be interpreted as meaning that a contractual condition found to be unfair should in rule be regarded as non-existent, so as not to have effects on the consumer. Consequently, the judicial uncovering of the unfair nature of specified a condition should in rule have the effect of restoring the legal and factual situation of the consumer in which it would be in the absence of that condition. It follows from the above that the work for a national court to exclude a unfair contractual condition ordering payment of amounts that prove to be undue is, in principle, bound with adequate restitution effect concerning these amounts ( TS judgement of 9.7.2020, Raiffeisen Bank and BRD Groupe Société Générale, C-698/18 and C-699/18, Legalis, paragraph 54).
The Court has already held that consumer protection is not unconditional and that setting reasonable time limits for bringing an appeal under the rigor of precision in the interest of legal certainty, is compatible with Union law ( TS judgement of 22.4.2021, Profi Credit Slovakia, C-485/19, Legalis, paragraph 57). Furthermore, Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC do not preclude national rules which, although they supply that a claim for annulment of an unfair condition in a contract concluded between an entrepreneur and a consumer is not subject to limitation, supply for a limitation of the claim based on the restitution effects of that declaration of invalidity. Provided that this time limit is not little favourable than the time limits for akin legal measures existing in national law (the rule of equivalence) and does not render the exercise of rights conferred by the Union legal order, in peculiar Directive 93/13/EEC, virtually impossible or excessively hard (the rule of effectiveness) (the TS judgement of 8.9.2022, D.B.P. and Others, from C-80/21 to C-82/21, Legalis, paragraph 90).
The Court points out that respect for the rule of equivalence requires that the national standard in question should apply without discrimination to claims based on infringement of Union law and to claims based on infringement of interior law having a akin object and basis (Case C-698/18, paragraph 76). Accordingly, Directive 93/13/EEC and the rule of equivalence do not prevent a claim based on the restitution effects of the declaration of invalidity of an unfair contractual condition from being subject to a limitation period, while maintaining the absence of a limitation period for the annulment of specified a condition, provided that that the limitation period shall not be little favourable than the time limit applicable to claims based on infringements of interior law and having akin subject substance and grounds.
In the present case, the Court pointed out that the national court must examine the existence of similarity, with respect to their subject matter, grounds and essential elements, between a claim in the main proceedings and another types of claims based on national law which that court cites in its application for a preliminary ruling (Case C-698/18, paragraph 77). For the purposes of this examination, that court will so gotta verify whether the Spanish legal order provides for claims in areas another than those covered by Directive 93/13/EEC based on the effects of the annulment which are akin in terms of the subject matter, grounds and essential elements of the claim raised by MF, but which, under national law or national jurisprudence, are not subject to a limitation period comparable to that applicable to that second claim. In the affirmative reply, the TS considered that a national regulation providing for the application of this limitation period to a claim in the main proceedings would infringe the rule of equivalence. In these circumstances, it is for the referring court to examine the respect of the rule of equivalence taking into account the elements mentioned above (the judgement of the TS of 26.9.2018, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en justitie (Impact of suspending the appeal), C-180/17, Legalis, paragraph 42).
In conclusion, the TS held that Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and the rule of equivalence should be interpreted as not precluding national government or national jurisprudence, which, although providing that a claim for annulment of an unfair condition in a contract concluded between an entrepreneur and a consumer is not subject to limitation, supply for a limitation of a claim based on the restitution effects of that annulment, provided that the national legal order provides in areas another than those covered by Directive 93/13/EEC for claims based on the effects of an annulment which are akin in terms of the subject matter, grounds and essential elements of the claim based on specified restitution effects, subject to a limitation period comparable to that applicable to that second claim.
Comment
In this judgment, the TS explained how a national court should interpret the rule of equivalence in the context of consumer redress for the annulment of a contractual condition concerning costs in a mortgage credit agreement (see Article 385)1 KC) and claims based on the restitution effects of specified an annulment on which another limitation periods apply in the national law of a associate State. The Court has set out in item the criteria to be applied in this examination by the national court.
This judgement deserves peculiar attention due to the fact that the rules adopted by associate States under their procedural autonomy are, however, subject to review by the Court in the context of the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. The rulings of the TS relating to the second rule are not besides frequent, and the explanation of the TS contained in this judgement may besides aid the Polish courts to interpret another procedural issues relating to credit agreements in the context of the rule of equivalence.
Judgment of the TS of 13.3.2025, Banco Santander, C-230/24, Legalis
