EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022CA0531
Case C-531/22, Getin Noble Bank and Others (Review by a national court of its own motion of unfair contractual terms): Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — Getin Noble Bank S.A., TF, C2, PI v TL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) — Article 6(1) — Article 7(1) — Article 8 — Enforcement order which has acquired the force of res judicata — Power of the court to assess of its own motion whether a term is unfair when supervising enforcement proceedings — National register of standard business terms which are held to be unlawful — Terms which are linguistically different from those contained in that register, but which have the same meaning and the same effect)
Case C-531/22, Getin Noble Bank and Others (Review by a national court of its own motion of unfair contractual terms): Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — Getin Noble Bank S.A., TF, C2, PI v TL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) — Article 6(1) — Article 7(1) — Article 8 — Enforcement order which has acquired the force of res judicata — Power of the court to assess of its own motion whether a term is unfair when supervising enforcement proceedings — National register of standard business terms which are held to be unlawful — Terms which are linguistically different from those contained in that register, but which have the same meaning and the same effect)
Case C-531/22, Getin Noble Bank and Others (Review by a national court of its own motion of unfair contractual terms): Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — Getin Noble Bank S.A., TF, C2, PI v TL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) — Article 6(1) — Article 7(1) — Article 8 — Enforcement order which has acquired the force of res judicata — Power of the court to assess of its own motion whether a term is unfair when supervising enforcement proceedings — National register of standard business terms which are held to be unlawful — Terms which are linguistically different from those contained in that register, but which have the same meaning and the same effect)
OJ C, C/2024/1659, 4.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1659/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN Series C |
|
C/2024/1659 |
4.3.2024 |
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie — Poland) — Getin Noble Bank S.A., TF, C2, PI v TL
(Case C-531/22, (1) Getin Noble Bank and Others (Review by a national court of its own motion of unfair contractual terms))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) - Article 6(1) - Article 7(1) - Article 8 - Enforcement order which has acquired the force of res judicata - Power of the court to assess of its own motion whether a term is unfair when supervising enforcement proceedings - National register of standard business terms which are held to be unlawful - Terms which are linguistically different from those contained in that register, but which have the same meaning and the same effect)
(C/2024/1659)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie
Parties to the main proceedings
Creditors: Getin Noble Bank S.A., TF, C2, PI
Debtor: TL
Other parties to the proceedings: EOS, Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, MG, Komornik Sądowy AC
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation which provides that a national court may not carry out, of its own motion, a review of the unfairness of terms contained in an agreement concluded with the consumer and attach consequences thereto where it is supervising enforcement proceedings based on a decision issuing a final order for payment which is res judicata:
|
|
2. |
Article 3(1), Article 6(1), Article 7(1) and Article 8 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national case-law according to which the entry of a contractual term in the national register of unlawful terms renders that term unfair in any proceedings involving a consumer, including in respect of a seller or supplier other than that against which proceedings for entry of that unfair term in the register of unlawful terms were under way and in respect of a term which is not linguistically identical to the term which has been registered, but which has the same meaning and produces the same effect vis-à-vis the consumer concerned. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1659/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)