Facts
The Hungarian dispute reached in 2008 between HL (consumer) and Bank mortgage credit agreements denominated in CHF for 360 months. This agreement contained a condition that the risks associated with CHF's appreciation of HUF were borne entirely by the consumer. In 2023. HL brought an action for failure by Bank the information work and the insufficient nature of the information provided on exchange rate risks, the uncovering that the credit agreement is ineffective. Bank raised a plea of limitation of the claim HL and filed for dismissal.
The Budapest court had doubts as to how the five-year limitation period applicable to the action by which the consumer requests the national court to draw the legal consequences of the cancellation of the credit agreement under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5.4.1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 1993 L 95, p. 29).
TS Position
Contract date
The Court states that the examination of the characteristics of the limitation period, specified as that in the main proceedings, must concern in peculiar the dimension of that period and the rules for its application, including the way in which it starts to run through that period ( TS judgement of 10.6.2021, BNP Paribas individual Finance, from C-776/19 to C-782/19, Legalis, paragraph 30). As regards the commencement of the limitation period, it follows from the caselaw of the TS that the application of five-year limitation period starting at the time of conclusion of the contract in question – which means that the consumer may claim reimbursement of fees paid on the basis of a contractual condition considered unfair only for the first 5 years after the contract was signed, whether or not he was or could reasonably have had an awareness of the unfair nature of that condition – may make it virtually impossible or excessively hard to exercise the rights conferred on the consumer by Directive 93/13 and consequently infringe the rule of effectiveness in relation to the rule of legal certainty ( TS 16.7.2020, Caixabank and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, C-224/19 and C-259/19, Legalis, paragraph 91). The Court indicated that account should be taken of poorer consumer position to the entrepreneur both in terms of negotiating opportunities and in terms of the degree of information. In addition, consumers can not knowing of the unfair nature of the condition the mortgage credit agreement, or do not realize the scope of their rights under Directive 93/13.
Consequently, the TS concluded that as regards the beginning of the limitation period in the main proceedings, The TS considered that there was a crucial hazard that, given the way it was defined in the Hungarian case law, the consumer will not be able to effectively exercise the rights conferred on him by Directive 93/13.
The Court held that Articles 1(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13, in relation to the rule of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding the judicial explanation of national law that, in the event of the annulment of a credit agreement which is not capable of being valid without an unfair condition due to the fact that it relates to the main subject substance of the contract, the consumer may rely, in judicial proceedings, on the legal consequences of specified annulment only within a five-year limitation period from the date of conclusion of that contract, if, on that date, the consumer did not know or was incapable to take cognition of the unfair nature of the contractual condition in question and, consequently, was incapable to effectively exercise the rights conferred on him by Directive 93/13.
Start of limitation period
The Court has already ruled that the limitation period for a consumer’s restitution claim on the basis of a unfair contractual condition is to begin to run on the date on which the national ultimate Court issued a judgement declaring unfair the standard condition corresponding to the clause in the disputed contract would in many cases let the trader to hold the amounts unduly obtained to the detriment of that consumer on the basis of a unfair condition, which would be incompatible with the case law of the TS. The Court found that this start of the run could not be determined in isolation from the issue, whether this consumer knew or could reasonably have known of the unfair nature of the second condition giving emergence to the right to reimbursement, and without imposing to the trader of the work to care and inform the consumer, thus highlighting the weaker position of the latter, which Directive 93/13 is intended to alleviate ( TS 25.4.2024, Banco Santander (Start of limitation period), C-561/21, Legalis, paragraph 47).
According to the TS, Directive 93/13 precludes the anticipation that, in order to find the beginning of the limitation period, a consumer's claim for reimbursement of sums unduly paid in the performance of a unfair contractual condition can be considered to be national jurisprudence, even if established, concerning the annulment of akin contractual conditions demonstrates that the consumer’s cognition of the unfair nature of that condition and the resulting legal consequences is met (judgment Caixabank (Provisional of the reimbursement of mortgage costs), point 61). On the another hand, court ruling of the seriousness of the judgment, establishing the unfair nature of the contractual condition and correctly delivered to the consumer concerned in accordance with the applicable national rules as the addressee of that judgment, may be the beginning of a limitation period. Since that judgement was final, it is assumed that the consumer had full cognition of the irregularity of the condition and is so able to make a self-assessment of the appropriateness of the action for reimbursement of sums paid on the basis of an unfair condition within the time limit set by national law (issue Banco Santander (Start of limitation period), points 36, 37).
The Court held that Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding that the date on which the TS interpreted that Directive or the date on which the ultimate Court ruled on the unfair nature of the conditions introduced into consumer contracts should be taken into account in order to find erstwhile the limitation period for claims lodged by the consumer was to begin to run, with a view to the reimbursement of amounts paid under a condition akin to that which gave emergence to the explanation of that directive by the Court or a condition subject to a national court ruling or to the continuation of that period after its suspension.
Comment
In this judgment, the TS confirmed that the date on which the credit agreement containing the unfair condition was concluded (Article 3851(1) of the CCC), which relates to the main subject substance of the contract and whose contract the court ruled nullity, cannot constitute the beginning of the limitation period for consumer claims against the trader (see in peculiar Articles 118 and 120(1) of the CCC). In specified a case, the consumer could not effectively exercise his rights under Directive 93/13 and the transposition of national law. The TS indicated that this was a situation where the consumer did not know or was incapable to take cognition of the unfair nature of the contractual condition on that day. The Court has rightly accepted that the existence of judgments issued by a national SN or a TEU declaring the unfair nature of certain standard conditions cannot in itself mean that the consumer knew or could reasonably know of the unfair nature of a akin condition contained in the contract he concluded with the entrepreneur. However, the TS acknowledged that an entrepreneur should be able to prove that the consumer knew or could reasonably know about these rulings.
It should be noted that in the present case, the TS refers only to the limitation of consumer claims, whereas in the context of Polish disputes, the question arises whether the period of limitation of a trader's claim against the consumer for reimbursement of undue benefits under a contract which has become invalid due to unfair contractual terms is raised from the date on which the consumer questioned the work of contract with the bank (see now submitted to the TSEU the Polish requests for a preliminary ruling on: Cerebral, C-262/25; SewageC-261/25; Olteski, C-260/25; Jumin, C-259/25; Drocha,C-747/24).
Judgment of the TS of 19.3.2026, UniCredit Bank and Momentum Credit, C-679/24
