On Thursday, February 13, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) made a ruling based on the preliminary questions posed by a Polish court regarding the sanction of interest-free loan. The case filed by the commercial company dealing with purchasing of claims involves seeking a bank to refund the interest and other costs incurred under the loan agreement by citing the interest-free credit sanction.
Firstly, the CJEU did not rule that the interest rate of loan costs is unacceptable. According to the CJEU, the circumstance that the Total Cost of Credit (RRSO) might appear inflated does not in itself constitute a violation of the duty to inform. This means that the most common claim, which is often referred to by laymen in consumer affairs cases, has been definitely challenged by the Court.
Secondly, the CJEU stated that it is the responsibility of the national court to evaluate whether an average consumer, who is well informed and sufficiently attentive and reasonable, was able to assess how the size of their commitment can change based on the contract’s terms regarding fee changes.
Thirdly, the Court emphasized that the severity of the sanction provided in national law must be adequate to the gravity of the infringements and the principle of proportionality, which arises from EU law (point 49 of the ruling), must be respected. Furthermore, in points 54 and 58 of the ruling, the CJEU confirmed that the sanction of an interest-free loan could be considered disproportionate if the breach of information obligations has no impact on a consumer’s decision to enter into a contract.
The CJEU confirmed that the sanction of an interest-free loan cannot be automatically applicable. It is up to the national court to evaluate the gravity of the obligations breached by the creditor and their influence on a consumer’s decision to enter into a contract.
The ruling confirms the legitimacy and the necessity to amend the regulations about the disproportionate sanction of interest-free loan in Poland, which is currently being instrumentally used by para-law firms that build their business on consumer cases.
Source: https://ceo.com.pl/komentarz-zwiazku-bankow-polskich-do-wyroku-tsue-w-sprawie-tsue-c-472-23-17773
