Crédito hipotecário

Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: April 2026

Jurisprudência

April 2026 saw a number of relevant judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressing important issues in consumer law. These decisions contribute to clarifying the interpretation of EU directives and regulations. Below is an overview of rulings delivered in this month, highlighting their practical implications for businesses, consumers, and regulators across the EU.

Consumer Acknowledgment Can Interrupt Limitation Periods: CJEU Clarifies Effects in Unfair Contract Cases

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-901/24, Falucka), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC in the context of restitution claims following the invalidity of consumer contracts containing unfair terms. The case concerned proceedings between mBank and several consumers after a mortgage loan agreement was declared void due to unfair terms, raising the question whether a consumer’s acknowledgment of debt, made during litigation, can interrupt the limitation period for the bank’s restitution claim.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude national rules under which such an acknowledgment interrupts the limitation period. It reasoned that this does not undermine the effectiveness of consumer protection, since the invalidity of unfair terms must restore the parties to their original position, which may include mutual restitution. The Court emphasized that the consumer’s right to restitution remains intact, and that allowing interruption of limitation periods does not make it excessively difficult to exercise rights under EU law.

Importantly, the Court clarified that a consumer’s informed acknowledgment, made after being advised of the legal consequences of contract invalidation, may validly produce legal effects, including restarting limitation periods. It rejected the argument that such acknowledgments inherently disadvantage consumers, noting that consumers must be properly informed, but not exhaustively instructed on all procedural consequences, such as limitation rules.

The Court also found that this approach is consistent with the principles of legal certainty and the right of access to a court, as it allows sellers or suppliers to rely on consumer statements when deciding whether to initiate legal action. Such rules ensure predictability and fairness in legal relations, without compromising the protective purpose of Directive 93/13.

Overall, the judgment confirms that consumer protection under EU law does not exclude procedural consequences flowing from a consumer’s own informed statements, and that national limitation rules, when applied proportionately, remain compatible with the Directive’s objectives.

Online Gambling Restrictions and Restitution of Losses: CJEU Confirms Compatibility with EU Law

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-440/23, FB), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 56 TFEU in the context of national restrictions on online gambling and claims for restitution of losses incurred under unlawful gambling contracts. The case concerned proceedings between a consumer and Malta-based online gambling operators, raising questions about whether German legislation prohibiting certain online games of chance, such as slot machines and secondary lotteries, was compatible with the freedom to provide services.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude national legislation imposing a general prohibition on specific forms of online gambling, even where other types of gambling are permitted, including land-based games and certain licensed online activities like sports betting. It reasoned that Member States retain broad discretion in regulating gambling to protect consumers and prevent fraud and addiction, and that differences in regulatory treatment between types of games do not, in themselves, undermine the consistency or proportionality of such legislation.

The Court emphasized that the existence of demand for prohibited online gambling services, or the fact that similar services are lawfully offered in other Member States, does not invalidate national restrictions. It also clarified that a later legislative shift towards a licensing system does not retroactively affect the legality or consequences of a prior prohibition, including during transitional regulatory periods.

Importantly, the Court confirmed that contracts concluded in breach of such national prohibitions may be considered void under applicable national law, and that consumers may seek restitution of losses incurred. It rejected the argument that such claims constitute an abuse of rights, noting that restitution arises from national contract law and reflects the consequences of illegality, rather than reliance on EU law itself.

Overall, the judgment reaffirms the wide regulatory autonomy of Member States in the gambling sector and confirms that national rules on contract nullity and restitution, when applied consistently with EU law, do not infringe the freedom to provide services.

Bank Restitution Actions May Interrupt Limitation Periods Despite Parallel Invalidity Proceedings: CJEU Clarifies Consumer Protection Limits

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-752/24, Jangielak), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, together with the principles of effectiveness, proportionality, legal certainty and the right of access to a court, in the context of restitution claims following the invalidity of consumer credit agreements containing unfair terms. The case concerned proceedings between mBank and consumers after a mortgage loan agreement indexed to the Swiss franc was challenged for containing unfair terms, raising the question whether a bank’s action for restitution, brought before the final outcome of separate invalidity proceedings initiated by consumers, can interrupt the limitation period.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude national rules under which the bringing of such a restitution action interrupts the limitation period, even where parallel proceedings on the invalidity of the contract are still ongoing. It reasoned that this mechanism is compatible with the objective of Directive 93/13, since the invalidity of unfair terms requires restoring the parties to their original position, which may include mutual restitution obligations.

The Court emphasized that consumer protection does not exclude the bank’s right to seek restitution, as denying such a possibility could infringe the principle of proportionality and lead to unjust enrichment of the consumer. It also stressed that allowing interruption of limitation periods ensures effective judicial protection and access to a court for the seller or supplier, maintaining a fair balance between the parties.

Importantly, the Court clarified that the mere obligation for consumers to defend themselves in restitution proceedings does not make the exercise of their rights excessively difficult, provided that national courts ensure procedural safeguards. In particular, courts must verify that costs are not disproportionately high and may, where appropriate, stay proceedings to avoid undermining consumer protection.

The Court further found that such rules are consistent with the principle of legal certainty, as they ensure predictability in legal relations by allowing limitation periods to be interrupted through judicial actions in a uniform manner.

Overall, the judgment confirms that Directive 93/13 does not prevent national procedural rules that allow banks to interrupt limitation periods through restitution actions, even during ongoing invalidity proceedings, provided that consumer rights are not rendered excessively difficult or impossible to exercise.

Equity May Justify Allowing Time-Barred Bank Claims: CJEU Sets Limits Under Consumer Law

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-753/24, Rzepacz), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC does not preclude national rules allowing courts, in exceptional circumstances, to grant a bank’s restitution claim even after the limitation period has expired, where equity so requires.

The Court emphasized that the invalidity of unfair terms entails restoring the parties to their original position, including mutual restitution, and that fully excluding the bank’s claim could breach the principle of proportionalityand lead to unjust enrichment.

However, such exceptions must remain strictly limited, based on objective criteria, and applied so that they do not make it excessively difficult for consumers to exercise their rights, particularly by avoiding disproportionate costs.

Overall, the ruling confirms that equity-based exceptions to limitation periods are permissible, provided they do not undermine effective consumer protection under EU law.

Non-Publication of ISO Standards Does Not Preclude Their Enforceability Where Access Is Ensured: CJEU Clarifies Rule of Law Requirements

In its judgment of 21 April 2026 (Case C-155/24, Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/40/EU in light of the principle of the rule of law, legal certainty, and free access to EU law, in the context of measuring tobacco emissions. The case concerned whether ISO standards referenced in EU legislation, but not published in the Official Journal, can be enforced against individuals.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude the enforceability of such ISO standards where individuals have had actual access to their official and authentic content, even if they were not formally published. In such cases, individuals cannot rely on alternative measurement methods to challenge compliance with emission limits.

The Court emphasized that free and effective access to legal rules is a core requirement of the rule of law under Article 2 TEU. Therefore, standards incorporated into EU law must be accessible in a general, non-discriminatory, and free-of-charge manner, ensuring that individuals can verify compliance and enforce their rights.

Importantly, the Court clarified that once such access is guaranteed, the absence of formal publication in the Official Journal does not undermine the binding nature of those standards. At the same time, it stressed that the EU must ensure access to these standards, even where they are protected by intellectual property rights, due to an overriding public interest.

Overall, the judgment confirms that non-publication of technical standards does not prevent their application, provided that effective access is ensured, thereby safeguarding both legal certainty and a high level of public health protection under EU law.

Charging Interest on Credit Costs Is Precluded Under EU Law: CJEU Clarifies Scope of “Total Amount of Credit”

In its judgment of 23 April 2026 (Case C-744/24, P.W. v Bank Polska Kasa Opieki S.A.), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 3(g) and (j) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC in the context of consumer credit agreements involving financed insurance premiums. The case concerned whether a lender may apply interest not only to the amount actually disbursed to the consumer, but also to costs associated with the credit, such as insurance premiums.

The Court held that EU law precludes such a practice. Interest, defined as the “borrowing rate”, may be applied only to the amount of credit actually made available to the consumer, and not to sums forming part of the total cost of the credit, even where those costs are financed as part of the agreement.

The Court emphasized the strict distinction established by Directive 2008/48 between the “total amount of credit” and the “total cost of the credit to the consumer”. Costs such as insurance premiums, particularly where they are required to obtain the credit on advertised terms, fall within the latter category and cannot be treated as part of the credit drawn down.

Importantly, the Court clarified that this prohibition applies regardless of whether the relevant sums are physically transferred to the consumer or paid directly to third parties. The classification of such amounts depends on their economic function within the credit agreement, not on the method of disbursement.

Overall, the judgment confirms that lenders cannot circumvent EU consumer protection rules by artificially inflating the base on which interest is calculated. By excluding credit costs from the interest-bearing amount, the ruling reinforces transparency, ensures comparability of credit offers, and safeguards a high level of consumer protection under EU law.

Consumers May Enforce Rights Against Transferee Banks: CJEU Confirms Limits Under Directive 93/13

In its judgment of 23 April 2026 (Case C-761/24, HM and JD v AXA Bank Belgium SA and Others), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the application of Directive 93/13/EEC to loan agreements transferred between credit institutions.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude requiring consumers to assert their rights only against the transferee of a contract, as long as this does not make those rights impossible or excessively difficult to exercise.

It stressed that the concept of “seller or supplier” includes transferee banks, and that all legal consequences of unfair terms must remain enforceable against them under the same conditions as against the original lender.

Overall, the judgment confirms that contract transfers cannot undermine consumer protection, and rights must remain fully effective after the transfer.

Herchoski (C-902/24): key holdings and open questions from a consumer law perspective

Jurisprudência

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 22 January 2026 in Herchoski (C-902/24) addresses a set of recurring and sensitive issues concerning the consequences of the nullity of consumer credit agreements containing unfair terms, in particular mortgage loans indexed to foreign currencies. Beyond the specific point of short deadlines for restitution, the judgment clarifies some aspects of EU consumer law, while leaving others only partially resolved.

1. Set-off between restitution claims following the nullity of the contract

The Court confirms that EU law does not, in principle, preclude national rules allowing the set-off of reciprocal restitution claims arising from the nullity of a consumer credit agreement (paras 59–66, 85). In particular, it distinguishes set-off from mechanisms such as a right of retention previously found incompatible with Directive 93/13, stressing that set-off, as understood under Polish law, produces effects equivalent to reciprocal payments and does not, as such, deprive the consumer of default interest (paras 63–66).

At the same time, the Court recalls that the bank may not obtain any remuneration for the use of the capital beyond reimbursement of the principal and statutory default interest, in line with its earlier case-law (para. 73).

2. Set-off invoked in the alternative by the seller or supplier

The Court accepts that a bank may raise a plea of set-off in the alternative, while maintaining as its principal argument that the contract is valid (paras 70–72, 85). This conclusion is grounded in both the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of equality of arms, which also apply to sellers or suppliers in consumer disputes.

However, the Court draws a crucial limit: as long as the bank continues to argue that the contract is valid, its restitution claim cannot be regarded as due. Any formal notice served on the consumer before the judicial declaration of nullity must therefore be considered ineffective, in particular for the purposes of default interest (para. 74).

3. Short deadlines for restitution of the loan capital

The issue of short deadlines imposed on consumers for the restitution of the loan capital is the point at which the judgment is at its most cautious, and, arguably, most problematic. The Court acknowledges that the duration of the payment period is governed by national law, but insists that, in light of all the circumstances, it must not be such as to deter or prevent consumers from exercising the rights conferred by Directive 93/13 (para. 75).

However, the Court refrains from articulating any substantive criteria for assessing when a deadline becomes dissuasive. It does not indicate whether a period such as the 14-day deadline at issue in the main proceedings is, in itself, incompatible with EU law, nor does it expressly engage with the economic reality of mortgage credit. In most cases, the loan capital has been irreversibly used to acquire the property, making its immediate restitution not merely difficult, but potentially impossible. The risk faced by consumers is therefore not limited to procedural inconvenience, but extends to default, insolvency, or loss of the home.

Rather than confronting this structural constraint directly, the Court links the assessment of the deadline to the duty of the national court to inform the consumer, in an objective and comprehensive manner, of the legal consequences of nullity before it takes effect (paras 67 and 75). This approach places considerable weight on information and individual choice, assuming that a fully informed consumer can meaningfully decide whether to invoke nullity.

From a consumer law perspective, this assumption is open to serious doubt. Even perfect information does not neutralise structural economic asymmetry. Where the consumer lacks any realistic capacity to repay the capital within a short time frame, the choice between invoking nullity and maintaining a contract containing unfair terms may be largely illusory. By treating the problem primarily as one of information rather than of economic feasibility, the Court effectively shifts the burden of managing this tension onto national courts, without providing clear guidance on how to resolve it.

4. Centrality of the informed intention of the consumer

The judgment reiterates that the protection afforded by Directive 93/13 ultimately depends on the consumer’s intention. If, after being duly informed by the national court of the consequences of removing the unfair terms, the consumer does not oppose the declaration of nullity, the resulting restitution mechanisms, including set-off, are not contrary to EU law (paras 67–69).

This emphasis reinforces the role of information and consent, but also raises questions as to the extent to which consumer choice can be regarded as genuinely free in situations of structural economic constraint.

5. Allocation of costs and the principle of effectiveness

As regards costs, the Court recalls that this matter falls within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (paras 76–77). While consumers may, in principle, bear some costs, national rules must not deter them from exercising their rights under Directive 93/13 (paras 78–79).

Importantly, the Court stresses the obligation of national courts to interpret domestic procedural rules in conformity with EU law, making use, where necessary, of corrective mechanisms that allow for a more equitable allocation of costs (paras 80–83). At the same time, it leaves room for courts to take into account possible bad faith on the part of consumers who challenge a set-off without justification (para. 84).

6. Overall assessment

The Herchoski judgment does not signal a reversal of the Court’s consumer-protective case-law, but rather a phase of consolidation and restraint. The Court confirms that set-off mechanisms and procedural defences available under national law are not, in themselves, incompatible with Directive 93/13, while insisting on safeguards relating to the timing of restitution claims, the absence of remuneration for capital, and the need to avoid dissuasive effects.

At the same time, several crucial issues, most notably the practical impact of short restitution deadlines and the limits of consumer autonomy in contexts of economic constraint, are left unresolved and largely entrusted to national courts. The effectiveness of consumer protection in this area will therefore continue to depend, to a significant extent, on how those courts operationalise the principles laid down by the Court of Justice.

7. Policy implications

From a policy perspective, the Herchoski judgment highlights the growing tension between traditional restitutionary logic and the objectives of EU consumer protection in long-term credit relationships. If the effectiveness of the rights conferred by Directive 93/13 is to be preserved, legislators and courts alike may need to reflect on whether immediate restitution of the loan capital, following the nullity of a mortgage credit agreement, should remain the default solution. Possible avenues include statutory or judicially recognised mechanisms for the deferment or staged repayment of the capital, clearer rules on the moment at which restitution claims become enforceable, and a more explicit integration of consumers’ economic capacity into the assessment of dissuasive effects. Without such adjustments, there is a risk that the formal availability of consumer rights will coexist with practical barriers that prevent their meaningful exercise. The Herchoski judgment thus invites a broader reflection on how EU consumer law can reconcile legal coherence with economic reality in the context of housing finance.