Around 900 cases reach the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) each year, and most of them are preliminary references—questions sent by national courts. Poland is among the EU member states whose courts refer such questions most frequently. In recent years, much of the attention has focused on mortgage loan agreements—primarily the so-called Swiss-franc (CHF) loans, and more recently also złoty-denominated mortgages linked to the WIBOR benchmark. The first judgment in the WIBOR line of cases is expected on 12 February.
“Among the Polish cases currently pending that attract the greatest interest, in the area of consumer protection we still have the Swiss-franc cases, which continue to resonate widely. These are questions in particular from the Regional Court in Warsaw concerning the settlement between the parties to a mortgage agreement that has been declared invalid,” says Jarosław Zasada, Press Attaché at the Media and Information Relations Unit of the CJEU, in an interview with Newseria.
Swiss-franc cases: a series of rulings and key principles
In CHF-loan disputes, the CJEU has already issued more than a dozen judgments, and most are interpreted as favourable to borrowers. The Court has held, among other things, that once an agreement is annulled, a bank cannot demand repayment of the entire amount of the loan if the borrower has already repaid part of the obligation. In its case law, the CJEU has also confirmed borrowers’ rights to full compensation when a loan agreement is declared invalid, and to claim statutory default interest from the moment they raise objections to contractual clauses. The Court has also addressed the prohibition on banks relying on a right of retention in such disputes.
The most recent judgment—of 22 January 2026 in case C-902/24—confirmed that set-off of mutual claims between a bank and a consumer is compatible with Directive 93/13/EEC. The Court also ruled that a bank cannot demand default interest from consumers before the agreement is finally declared invalid by a final judgment. At the same time, the CJEU accepted that banks may raise a set-off defence (even conditionally), while noting that the effectiveness of set-off depends on national law.
WIBOR cases: first CJEU ruling expected on 12 February
“A new type of case, also within the consumer strand, concerns the potential finding of unfair terms in mortgage agreements based on the WIBOR reference rate. The first such case will be decided on 12 February. Three others involving similar issues are pending, and more questions will likely follow,” the CJEU press attaché emphasizes.
In February, a ruling is expected in a case referred to the CJEU by the Regional Court in Częstochowa in July 2024 (case C-471/24). The judge asked, among other things, whether contractual terms referring to WIBOR may be considered unfair contractual terms within the meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
Other WIBOR-related references are also underway, including questions from courts in Warsaw (case C-586/25, concerning transparency and balance of the parties in a WIBOR-based loan agreement) and Kraków (case C-607/25, concerning the limits of a borrower’s risk and whether consumers can be burdened with an unlimited increase in interest rates). The most recent request—submitted by the Regional Court in Warsaw in September 2025—asks whether a bank could apply an index created on the basis of banks’ own declarations, without public oversight and without transparent methodology (case C-630/25).
CJEU statistics: Poland among the most active in preliminary references
According to the CJEU’s judicial statistics, in 2024 the Court received 920 new cases, of which 573 were preliminary references. In the same year, Poland submitted 47 preliminary questions—more than any other country except Italy (98) and Germany (66). In total, between 2020 and 2024, Polish courts submitted 209 preliminary references.
“The principal part of the cases concerning Poland are preliminary references submitted by Polish courts. At present, 70 such proceedings are pending. There are also a few cases in which Poland has been sued by the European Commission for failure to implement EU law, as well as actions brought by Poland, in particular concerning the Fit for 55 package,” notes Jarosław Zasada.
Last year, the European Commission brought cases against Poland at the CJEU, among other things, in connection with exceeding permissible nitrogen dioxide levels, the lack of an updated National Energy and Climate Plan, and the absence of a long-term climate strategy. Meanwhile, in July and August 2023, Poland challenged five legal acts forming part of the Fit for 55 package, concerning, among other matters, the CBAM mechanism, the ban on registering new internal combustion engine cars from 2035, and changes to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).
What the CJEU does and how proceedings work
“The Court of Justice of the European Union is the EU’s judicial institution. Under this term there are two bodies: the Court of Justice and the General Court as the lower instance. The Court’s role is to ensure the uniform application and interpretation of EU law, and to resolve disputes between states and EU institutions, as well as between member states,” explains Jarosław Zasada.
The CJEU has operated since 1952, and the General Court since 1988. The Court of Justice comprises 27 judges—one from each member state—and 11 Advocates General. The General Court has 54 judges, two from each EU country. Proceedings before the CJEU include a written and an oral stage.
“In preliminary reference proceedings, national courts ask the Court questions regarding the interpretation or validity of EU law. As for the General Court, individuals also have access to it to a limited extent—for example, entrepreneurs challenging European Commission decisions in state aid matters,” the CJEU press attaché adds.
