Pressemitteilung

C-565/12;

Rechtskräftig: unbekannt!

The Court clarifies the conditions under which application of the forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest is, as a penalty for a creditor’s breach of its precontractual obligation to assess a borrower’s creditworthiness, compatible with EU law

Click here to the full text of the judgement

French law provides that a creditor which has failed to properly assess a borrower’s creditworthiness prior to the conclusion of a credit agreement can no longer claim contractual interest. However, interest at the statutory rate remains automatically due and must be increased by five percentage points if the borrower has failed to settle his debt in full in the two months following an enforceable judicial decision.

French law provides that a creditor which has failed to properly assess a borrower’s creditworthiness prior to the conclusion of a credit agreement can no longer claim contractual interest. However, interest at the statutory rate remains automatically due and must be increased by five percentage points if the borrower has failed to settle his debt in full in the two months following an enforceable judicial decision.

Addressing that question, the Court of Justice points out that, under Directive 2008/48, in order to ensure effective protection of consumers against the irresponsible granting of credit agreements, a creditor is required, before entering into any agreement, to assess a borrower’s creditworthiness and that the Member States are required to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive measures to penalise any failure to comply with that obligation. The Court therefore examines whether the severity of the penalty provided for by the French legislation (namely the forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest) is commensurate with the seriousness of the infringement for which it is imposed and, in particular, whether such a penalty has a genuinely dissuasive effect.

In this respect, the Court notes that, in the case where the outstanding amount of the principal sum is immediately repayable as a result of the borrower’s default, the referring court must compare the amounts which the creditor would have received if it had complied with its pre-contractual obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness with the amounts which it would receive following application of the abovementioned penalty. If the referring court were to conclude that the application of the penalty is liable to confer an advantage on the creditor, it follows that the system of penalties in question does not have a genuinely dissuasive effect.

The Court also notes that the penalty in question cannot be regarded as genuinely dissuasive if the amounts which the creditor is likely to receive following application of the penalty are not significantly lower than those which it could have received if it had complied with its obligation. If the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to interest is weakened, or even entirely undermined, the penalty will not be genuinely dissuasive, contrary to the provisions of Directive 2008/48.

------------------
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 European Union law or the validity of a European Union 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.
------------------
¹Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66, and – corrigenda – OJ 2009 L 207, p. 14, OJ 2010 L 199, p. 40, and OJ 2011 L 234, p. 46).

-----------------------------------------------------
Die von uns erfassten Urteile wurden oft anders formatiert als das Original. Dies bedeutet, daß Absätze eingefügt und Hervorhebungen durch fett-/kursiv-/&farbig-machen sowie Unterstreichungen vorgenommen wurden. Dies soll verdeutlichen, aber keinesfalls natürlich den Sinn verändern.Wenn Sie vorsichtshalber zusätzlich die Originalversion sehen möchten, hier ist der Link zur Quelle (kein Link? Dann ist dieser Link nicht in unserer DB gespeichert, z.B. weil das Urteil vor Frühjahr 2009 gespeichert worden ist).