The ultimate Court on 30 July 2025, in case of act number: III CZP 15/25 has examined questions concerning the sanction of the free loan, nevertheless the resolution will not be adopted for the time being. The ultimate Court indicated that proceedings were pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union on questions referred for a preliminary ruling, which concern the same legal issues. Before the ultimate Court, our expert, Sandra Ostrowska, is reporting.
For the record, the questions to the ultimate Court are as follows:
- Is the court of its own motion obliged to examine all the reasons justifying the application of the free credit punishment provided for in Article 45(1) of the Consumer Credit Act of 12 May 2011, including those not mentioned by the borrower in his written statement, or is the court bound by the contents of the borrower's message in this regard?
- Does the right to make a written message of the creditor's benefit from the sanctions on the free credit expire, in accordance with Article 45(5) of the Consumer Credit Act of 12 May 2011, 1 year after the date of performance of the contract by the creditor, or the date of performance of the contract by both parties, i.e. the creditor and the borrower?
- Is the conclusion that the provisions of the consumer credit agreement referred to in Article 45(1) of the Consumer Credit Act of 12 May 2011 are abusive and so not binding on the borrower to apply free credit sanctions?
- In the light of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act of 12 May 2011, is it permissible to reserve in the consumer credit agreement the interest rate on capital besides in respect of that part of the debt granted, which was utilized to pay the commission by the borrower, i.e. non-interest credit costs?
- If the actual yearly interest rate and the full amount to be paid by the consumer were wrongly calculated and given in the credit agreement, the only reason for which is unacceptable coverage of the interest rate on the credit out-of-interest credit costs, is specified a failure a basis for the application of free credit sanctions under Article 45(1) of the Consumer Credit Act of 12 May 2011?
In view of the above, in order to guarantee that there is no inconsistencies between the Court's position and the ultimate Court, the ultimate Court decided to wait for the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the view of the ultimate Court, in order to correctly interpret national law, the explanation of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on consumer credit agreements and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC should be first known and the only authority competent to interpret it is the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Therefore, pending the examination of cases pending before the Court of Justice of the following numbers: C-566/24, C-744/24 and C-831/24, there will be no resolution.
The position of the ultimate Court so seems reasonable. Anyone who remembers the conflict that went on and on in alleged "franc credits" knows the situations where the position of the ultimate Court was frequently contrary to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union and caused confusion of the general courts, procedural agents and borrowers themselves as to possible settlements.
The decisions to be taken before the Court of Justice of the European Union will so be a signpost for the ultimate Court and will affect the case law of the ultimate Court.
You want to know more about Free Credit Sanctions? Check the tab: Free Credit Sanctions (SKD) | Get help
