CJEU C‐119/15 / Judgment

Biuro podróży 'Partner' Sp. z o.o, Sp. komandytowa w Dąbrowie Górniczej v. Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
Policy area
Consumers
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
The Court (Fifth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
21/12/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2016:987

Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU C‐119/15 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Directive 2009/22/EC — Consumer protection — Erga omnes effect of unfair terms entered in a public register — Financial penalty imposed on a seller or supplier having used a term held to be equivalent to a term in the register — Seller or supplier who was not a party to the proceedings giving rise to the declaration that the term in question was unfair — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Concept of ‘court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law’)

    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 6(1) and Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the use of standard contract terms with content identical to that of terms which have been declared unlawful by a judicial decision having the force of law and which have been entered in a national register of unlawful standard contract terms from being regarded, in relation to another seller or supplier which was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry in that register, as an unlawful act, provided, which it is for the referring court to verify, that that seller or supplier has an effective judicial remedy against the decision declaring the terms compared to be equivalent in terms of the question whether, in the light of all relevant circumstances particular to each case, those terms are materially identical, having regard in particular to their harmful effects for consumers, and against the decision fixing the amount of the fine imposed, where applicable.
    2. The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a court such as the referring court, whose decisions in proceedings such as those in the main proceedings may be the subject matter of an appeal in cassation, cannot be categorised as a ‘court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law’.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
    1. It should be noted, as a preliminary point, that both the referring court and the Commission, in its written observations, have expressed doubts as to the compatibility of a national scheme such as the one at issue in the main proceedings with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and, more specifically, with Article 47 thereof, in so far as the seller or supplier would not have the opportunity thereunder to present arguments about the lack of unfairness of the standard conditions of business in question and would thereby be deprived of its right to be heard.
    1. It follows that the interpretation of Directives 93/13 and 2009/22 in the light of Article 47 of the Charter must take account of the fact that any person whose rights guaranteed by EU law might be infringed is entitled to an effective judicial remedy. This concerns not only consumers who feel that they have been wronged by an unfair term of a contract they have concluded with a seller or supplier, but also a seller or supplier, such as Biuro Partner, who argues that the contract term in dispute cannot be held to be unlawful and sanctioned by a fine solely because an equivalent term has been entered in the national registry of unlawful standard contract terms, without that seller or supplier having been a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry of such a term in that register.
    1. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 6(1) and Article 7 of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2009/22 and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding the use of standard contract terms with content identical to that of terms which have been declared unlawful by a judicial decision having the force of law and which have been entered in a national register of unlawful standard contract terms from being regarded, in relation to another seller or supplier which was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry in that register, as an unlawful act, provided, which it is for the referring court to verify, that that seller or supplier has an effective judicial remedy against the decision declaring the terms compared to be equivalent in terms of the question whether, in the light of all relevant circumstances particular to each case, those terms are materially identical, having regard in particular to their harmful effects for consumers, and against the decision fixing the amount of the fine imposed, where applicable.