
(AGENPARL) – gio 23 gennaio 2025 Judgment in case C-677/23 Slovenská sporite-ňa (Information in consumer credit agreements)
Two consumers concluded a credit agreement with a Slovak bank. The contract in question was concluded for a fixed period and the consumers undertook to repay the loan in question in 108 monthly instalments of EUR 54.20. The dates of the first and last monthly instalments were known.
However, said consumers consider, first, that the duration of the agreement is not explicitly stated in the contract and, second, that it does not contain the assumptions used to calculate the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC). Consequently, they applied to the competent national court to seek the nullity of the terms of that agreement and to have the credit declared free of interest and costs. The national court seeks clarification from the Court of Justice as to the interpretation of certain provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers.
First, the Court ruled that a credit agreement does not necessarily have to state explicitly its duration in so far as its terms enable the consumer to determine that duration without difficulty and with certainty. In the present case, the contract at issue does not expressly specify its duration, but indicates the number of monthly instalments to be paid by consumers and the due date of the first and last monthly instalments.
The Court finds that the duration of a credit agreement such as the agreement at issue is closely linked to the full performance of the obligations by each of the parties to that agreement and therefore, essentially, to the release of the capital by the lender and the repayment in full of the credit by the borrower.
Consequently, the duration of the credit agreement need not necessarily be indicated by a formal indication of the precise dates on which the agreement begins and ends, provided that the terms of the agreement enable the consumer to determine that duration without difficulty and with certainty. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the conditions are satisfied.
Secondly, the Court held that the parameters used to calculate the APRC must be expressly mentioned in the credit agreement and that it is not sufficient in that regard for the consumer to be able to identify them himself by examining the terms of that agreement. The mention of those parameters must thus enable the consumer to know his rights and obligations and to verify whether the APRC has been calculated by the lender institution correctly. If necessary, they will be able to assert their rights, including the right of withdrawal. According to the Court, that reference is of essential importance to the consumer. The Court considers that the parameters used to calculate the APRC may be complex, and it is therefore necessary to mention them in a clear, concise and express manner in a credit agreement. The mere possibility for the consumer to identify them by reading the various terms of that contract is not sufficient.
Non-official document, intended exclusively for use by the media, is not binding on the Court of Justice