The first question was whether the creditor had failed to fulfil its obligation to provide the APRC in the credit agreement where the APRC was overstated due to certain contract terms being declared unfair. The Court emphasised that, although the actual APRC would indeed be overstated if calculated with reference to non-binding unfair contract terms, Article 19(3) of the Consumer Contract Directive (CCD; Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers) requires that the APRC be calculated based on the assumption that the credit agreement is to remain valid for the period agreed and that the creditor and the consumer will fulfil their obligations under the terms and by the dates specified in the credit agreement (para 34). Consequently, where the APRC is determined in accordance with the mathematical formula set out in Annex I to the directive – incorporating the total cost of credit to the consumer, including costs payable under the contract’s terms – the creditor does not infringe its obligation to provide the APRC in the credit agreement. This remains the case even if some of the terms on which the APRC was calculated are subsequently declared unfair and therefore not binding on the consumer (para 35).
The Court also addressed the question of whether listing various circumstances under which charges connected with the performance of the credit agreement may increase, without enabling the consumer to determine whether those circumstances have arisen, constitutes a breach of the creditor’s information obligation under the CCD. The Court referred to its established case law, holding that the terms of the credit agreement must be drafted transparently so that an average consumer can foresee, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the changes that may be made to such charges (paras 41–44). Applying this principle to the contract terms in question, the Court concluded that where a credit agreement enumerates specific circumstances justifying an increase in charges without enabling the average consumer to ascertain whether those circumstances have materialised and their effect on the charges, this constitutes an infringement of the creditor’s obligation to provide information (paras 45–47).
Finally, the Court considered whether Article 23 CCD precludes national legislation that, in cases of infringement of the creditor’s obligation to provide information under Article 10(2) CCD, imposes a uniform penalty depriving the creditor of its right to interest and charges, irrespective of the seriousness of the infringement or its effect on the consumer’s decision. The primary concern was whether such a sanction would be proportional (para 51). Drawing upon its previous case law, the Court reaffirmed that Article 10(2) CCD sets out essential information that consumers must receive to assess the extent of their liability. A breach of this obligation may be sanctioned under national law by the forfeiture of the creditor’s entitlement to interest and charges (paras 53–54). The Court then turned to the specific circumstances of the case. Since the obligation to provide the APRC had not been infringed (first question), it focused instead on the conditions under which costs related to the performance of the agreement (such as commission fees) could be changed, considering this equally vital information under the CCD due to its impact on consumers’ financial obligations (para 55). The Court emphasised that the principle of proportionality does not preclude a Member State from imposing a uniform penalty depriving the creditor of its right to interest and charges for breaches of information obligations under Article 10(2) CCD, including those relating to the calculation of charges connected with contract performance, even where the gravity of the infringement may vary (para 57).
A Short Comment
The Court’s answers to the second and third questions are not surprising. It confirmed that the average consumer standard has been employed to assess the transparency of contract clauses under the CCD framework, as seen previously in BMW Bank, and has been extensively applied in consumer credit case law since Kásler. The response to the third question reaffirms that the information contained in a credit agreement (Article 10(2) CCD) is essential for the consumer to make an informed decision; consequently, failure to comply with this obligation may trigger sanctions under national law. The Court appears to have linked the proportionality of the sanction to the essential nature of the information provided.
The Court’s reasoning in relation to the first question, however, may be called into question. A literal interpretation of Article 19(3) CCD does not address the unfairness of terms used by the creditor but instead focuses on two distinct elements: first, that the APRC’s calculation is based on the assumption that the credit agreement remains valid for the agreed period; and second, that both parties will fulfil their respective obligations under the agreement. The unfairness of certain contract terms, on the other hand, means that they are null and void ab initio under Article 6(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, with the consequence that no obligations arise from them.
The first part of Article 19(3) CCD assumes the continued validity of the credit agreement. However, since finding the terms at issue null and void is unlikely to render the agreement invalid – as they do not appear to be essential to the contractual obligation (see Profi Credit Polska III, paras 68–70), although this must be verified under national law – this part of Article 19(3) CCD would not apply here. The same reasoning extends to the second part of Article 19(3) CCD: if obligations based on unfair terms do not exist ab initio, there is no obligation to fulfil on the side of any of the party.
It is also unclear how concluding that the APRC’s calculation, when partially based on unfair contract terms – leading to an overstatement of the APRC – does not infringe the information obligation under Article 10(2)(g) CCD, would contribute to achieving a high level of consumer protection. This raises at least three concerns.
First, in such cases, creditors would not face additional disincentives against using unfair terms in credit agreements. This appears inconsistent with Recital 20 of the CCD Preamble (“Creditors’ actual knowledge of the costs should be assessed objectively, taking into account the requirements of professional diligence”), which suggests that creditors could reasonably be expected to know when they are using unfair terms.
Second, since the APRC was overstated, it is unclear how the average consumer could accurately determine – not merely approximate – the extent to which the stipulated APRC would affect their future rights and obligations under the credit agreement. This appears to contradict the Court’s reasoning in its response to the second question, where the transparency of information is deemed crucial for consumer decision-making.
Third, it also seems to conflict with the Court’s reasoning in Pereničová and Perenič, here it held that an incorrect APRC constitutes false information regarding the total cost of credit and the price under Article 6(1)(d) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), as it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision they would not have otherwise taken (para 41). However, the Court may have drawn a distinction between cases where the actual APRC is lower than that stipulated in the contract (Lexitor II) and those where it is higher (Pereničová and Perenič), as well as between the transparency requirements under the CCD and those under the UCPD. Yet, these distinctions are not explicitly addressed in the commented judgment. Further clarification from the Court on this point would be necessary to provide much-needed clarity.
