Caixabank (Prescription de remboursement des frais hypothecaires) (Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Charges arising from the formalisation of the mortgage loan agreement - Judgment) [2024] EUECJ C-810/21 (25 January 2024)

Caixabank (Prescription de remboursement des frais hypothecaires) (Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Charges arising from the formalisation of the mortgage loan agreement - Judgment) [2024] EUECJ C-810/21 (25 January 2024)

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in light of the principle of effectiveness, preclude a national rule that subjects actions for restitution of charges paid under an unfair contractual term to a 10-year limitation period starting from the last payment, without regard to the consumer's awareness of the legal assessment of the facts. The compatibility of limitation rules must be assessed as a whole, ensuring consumers have the opportunity to become aware of their rights before the period begins or expires. Well-established national case-law on unfair terms cannot be deemed to provide consumers with sufficient legal knowledge to trigger the limitation period.

Citation
[2024] EUECJ C-810/21
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Caixabank SA (formerly Bankia SA); Applicant/appellant: WE and XA; Appellant/respondent: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA; Applicant/appellant: TB and UK; Appellant/respondent: Banco Santander SA; Applicant/appellant: OG; Applicant/appellant: OK and PI; Appellant/respondent: Banco Sabadell SA
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
25 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 810/21 to C 813/21) / Court of Justice of the European Union (ninth Chamber) Preliminary Reference
Outcome
Reference for a preliminary ruling answered; national rules precluding consumer awareness of legal assessment as relevant to limitation period are incompatible with Directive 93/13/EEC.
Legal Topics
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Limitation Periods, Restitution, Mortgage Loan Agreements, Interpretation of Directive 93/13/eec
European Union Law Consumer Protection Contract Law Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Limitation Periods Restitution Mortgage Loan Agreements Interpretation of Directive 93/13/eec

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caixabank SA (formerly Bankia SA)

Appellant/respondent

WE and XA

Applicant/appellant

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Appellant/respondent

TB and UK

Applicant/appellant

Banco Santander SA

Appellant/respondent

OG

Applicant/appellant

OK and PI

Applicant/appellant

Banco Sabadell SA

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 810/21 to C 813/21) / Court of Justice of the European Union (ninth Chamber) Preliminary Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude a national rule that subjects actions for restitution of charges paid under an unfair term to a 10-year limitation period starting from the last payment, regardless of consumer's legal awareness.
  2. 2 Whether well-established national case-law on unfair terms can be deemed to provide consumers with sufficient legal knowledge to trigger the limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in light of the principle of effectiveness, preclude a national rule that subjects actions for restitution of charges paid under an unfair contractual term to a 10-year limitation period starting from the last payment, without regard to the consumer's awareness of the legal assessment of the facts. The compatibility of limitation rules must be assessed as a whole, ensuring consumers have the opportunity to become aware of their rights before the period begins or expires. Well-established national case-law on unfair terms cannot be deemed to provide consumers with sufficient legal knowledge to trigger the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Reference for a preliminary ruling answered; national rules precluding consumer awareness of legal assessment as relevant to limitation period are incompatible with Directive 93/13/EEC.

Orders

  • Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude a national rule making the limitation period for restitution run from the last payment, regardless of consumer's legal knowledge.
  • Directive 93/13/EEC precludes using well-established national case-law as a basis to presume consumer awareness for limitation purposes.