Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2024

Uitspraak

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2024 –
Investcapital

(Case C‑658/23)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Answer clearly deducible from the case-law of the Court or leaving no room for reasonable doubt – Directive 2008/52/EC – Mediation in civil and commercial matters – National legislation providing for a mandatory information session on mediation – Constitutional case-law invalidating that legislation – Compatibility of that case-law with the directive – Principle of primacy of EU law – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Possibility for the court to review an unfair term )

1.      Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Mediation in civil and commercial matters – Directive 2008/52 – Recourse to mediation – Scope – Constitutional case-law invalidating national legislation providing for a mandatory information session on mediation – Precluded – No possibility for the national courts to disapply that case-law – Whether permissible

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/52, Arts 1(2) and 5(2))

(see paragraphs 35-39, 41-43, 45, operative part 1)

2.      Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Finding that a term is unfair – Scope – Revision by the national court of the content of an unfair term – Moderation of the amount of the late payment penalties imposed on the consumer by a contractual term – Not permissible

(Council Directive 93/13, Arts 6(1) and 7(1))

(see paragraphs 49-58, operative part 2)

Operative part

must be interpreted as meaning that:

it does not preclude the courts of a Member State from disapplying a decision of the Constitutional Court of that Member State invalidating national legislation under which the admissibility of certain actions, which may fall within the scope of that directive, is subject to compliance, by the applicant, with the obligation to attend an information meeting on the advantages of mediation, where such a decision does not fall within the scope of that provision and cannot therefore be contrary thereto.

must be interpreted as meaning that:

they preclude the national court, having found that a term of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier is unfair on the ground that that term provides for the application of late payment penalties payable by the consumer in the event of non-performance of his contractual obligations by fixing a specific daily amount without providing for a ceiling, reducing the total amount of those penalties by introducing such a ceiling, instead of ruling out the application of that term.