(AGENPARL) – Thu 03 July 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 83/25
Luxembourg, 3 July 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-582/23 | [Wiszkier] 1
Bankrupt consumer: the bankruptcy court must be able to examine ex
officio whether contractual terms are unfair
That examination may be carried out irrespective of the fact that the list of claims has been approved and is
binding
In Poland, an individual was declared bankrupt. The majority of the claims against him, appearing on a list drawn up
by a trustee in bankruptcy, originate in a mortgage loan agreement indexed to the Swiss franc that the bankrupt
had concluded 12 years previously, as a consumer. He acknowledged all those claims, the list of which was also
approved by the supervisory judge.
On the basis of that list, the bankruptcy court must now either draw up a plan for the repayment of the claims or
make a finding that the available assets are sufficient to honour all the debts, thereby making the plan redundant.
At that advanced stage of the proceedings, the bankruptcy court considers that the loan agreement contains unfair
terms capable of rendering it null and void. If that were the case, the amounts owed to the bank would be lower
than those on the list and may not even exist at all. However, until now, the potential unfairness of the terms of that
agreement has not been examined.
According to Polish law, the list of claims is binding on the bankruptcy court, which has no power to examine
contractual terms. It can only put the matter before the supervisory judge for the latter to carry out that
examination and, if necessary, to amend the list of claims. Furthermore, the rules of procedure do not allow for
interim measures to be taken to regulate the situation of the bankrupt consumer pending the outcome of that
examination.
The bankruptcy court has referred questions to the Court of Justice in order to ascertain whether the national
legislation on insolvency proceedings relating to natural persons effectively protects the rights conferred on
consumers by EU law. 2
The Court’s answer is in the negative.
In the absence of a prior examination of the unfairness of the terms in question, EU law requires the bankruptcy
court to carry out that assessment ex officio and to draw the necessary conclusions. A need to put the matter
before the supervisory judge would be likely to prolong the bankruptcy proceedings and, therefore, the precarious
financial situation of the bankrupt consumer. As a result, the bankrupt consumer might be discouraged from
exercising his or her rights deriving from EU law, which would make the application of that law excessively difficult.
The fact that the list of claims has become res judicata does not necessarily preclude such an examination. The
foregoing is justified by the public interest in consumers being protected, as such protection is guaranteed by EU
The bankruptcy court must also be able to apply interim measures to ensure that consumer protection is
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
fully effective. In the light of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, it will be for that court to
assess whether a measure to reduce the amounts withheld from the salary of the bankrupt consumer, pending a
decision on the unfairness of the clauses of the contract in question, is necessary for that purpose.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
Communications Directorate