On 16 April 2026. The Court of Justice of the European Union has given an crucial ruling on the C-753/24 (Rope), which is essential for another ongoing proceedings in which banks have brought claims against consumers for repayment of capital after the cancellation of the contract.
Background
The case went to the TSUE as a consequence of a preliminary question addressed by the territory Court in Warsaw in connection with the ongoing proceedings initiated by the bank against consumers. The national court had doubts as to whether a limitation of a trader’s claims against the consumer could be taken into account for the reimbursement of undue benefits under a contract which had become invalid if the grounds for fairness or the rule of social coexistence so require.
The essence of the dispute is Article 1171 of the civilian Code, which in exceptional cases allows the court to take into account a limitation of the trader's claim towards the consumer.
In practice, this means that a bank whose claim has been subject to limitation due to the expiry of the statutory deadline inactive has the anticipation to search payment.
In addition, where the court considers that there are grounds for fairness or the rule of social coexistence, the bank’s claim may be taken into account despite the limitation. specified an exception to the rule of legal certainty leads to the imposition of risks on consumers, especially where the cancellation of the contract is due to the application of unlawful contractual provisions by the bank.
Return on capital and equity
The CJEU pointed out that Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the rule of effectiveness, taking into account the right to a court and the principles of proportionality and legal certainty, should be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude, in principle, a provision of national law which allows the national court, in exceptional circumstances and where appropriate, to take into account the trader's claim for reimbursement of benefits paid to him on the basis of a credit agreement which is invalid due to the unfair conditions contained therein, even if the deadline for the limitation of his claim for reimbursement has expired, provided that the court takes all essential measures to guarantee that the exercise of the rights conferred on the consumer by that directive is not unduly impeded or virtually impossible.
The Court found that European Union law (Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993) allows account to be taken of the bank's statute of limitations, in exceptional circumstances and where due diligence so requires, to take account of the trader's claim for reimbursement of benefits paid to the consumer on the basis of a cancelled credit agreement, even if the limitation period for the bank's claim has expired, provided that the court takes all essential measures to guarantee that the exercise of the rights conferred on the consumer by that directive is not impeded.
The Court drew attention to the rule of proportionality and fairness in settlements after the cancellation of contracts. If the contract is cancelled, each organization is obliged to reimburse the benefits received from the another party, the consumer recovers the funds paid to the bank and the bank recovers the credit capital made available.
Conclusion
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union C-553/24 does not change the existing rules the Courts' assessment of the rule of fairness with respect to the inclusion of a limitation charge in the return case.
The consequence of the judgement is:
- the anticipation of taking into account the trader's claim despite the expiry of the limitation period but only in exceptional circumstances and where due diligence so requires;
- The CEU indicates that the application of Article 1171 k.c. cannot be automatic;
- The exceptional nature of the case is to be assessed by the court in individual proceedings, taking into account the dimension of the limitation period, the dimension of the period which expired from the expiry of the limitation period until the time of the claim and the circumstances which led to the failure of the banks.
