Brussels, 16/07/2012 (Agence Europe) - With its ruling in case C-602/10 on 12 July, the Court of Justice of the EU confirmed Romanian law on consumer credit contracts. The Court confirmed that member states may restrict the bank charges that can be levied by a creditor in such contracts without infringing EU law.
The Court was responding to questions from the Judecatoria Calarasi (District Court, Calarasi, Romania) which was hearing a dispute between the Comisariatul Judetean pentru Protectia Consumatorilor Calarasi (National Consumer Protection Authority - CJPC) and the Volksbank over a “risk charge” imposed by the bank on its customers who had entered into consumer credit contracts before an order transposing into Romanian law the directive on consumer credit agreements (2008/48/EC) in June 2010. Taking the view that the levying of that charge was not provided for by the order (which specifically limits the charges lenders can impose), the CJPC imposed a fine and ancillary penalties on Volksbank for continuing, after the order came into force, to impose the charges on contracts signed before it came into effect. Volksbank appealed against these penalties, arguing that certain provisions of the order were contrary to the directive. Accordingly the Romanian court requested the Court of Justice define the directive's scope on five points.
In its ruling, the Court responded point by point. 1) It says that member states may include within the scope of their national measures transposing the directive consumer credit agreements secured by immovable property, even though the directive excludes them from its own scope. The directive does not preclude member states from applying, in accordance with EU law, the directive's provisions to areas not covered by its scope. 2) It confirms that national rules may apply to credit agreements concluded before these rules come into force and still continuing after that time. Member states may lay down a transitional measure the consequence of which is that national legislation also applies to agreements existing on the date of its entry into force. 3) Through their laws, member states may impose obligations not provided for by the directive as regards the types of charges that credit institutions may levy in connection with consumer credit agreements. The Romanian order which contains an exhaustive list of bank charges that can be levied by the creditor upon consumers constitutes a consumer protection measure in a field not harmonised by the directive. 4) The Romanian legislation prohibiting credit institutions from levying certain bank charges does not make consumer credit offered by companies established in other member states less accessible for customers established in Romania. Contrary to the Volksbank contention, it does not infringe the European rules on the freedom to provide services. The Court says that rules of a member state do not constitute a restriction within the meaning of the Treaty solely because other member states apply less strict, or economically more favourable, rules to providers of similar services established in their territory. 5) The directive does not preclude the Romanian legislation which allows consumers to have direct recourse to a consumer protection authority, which may subsequently impose penalties on credit institutions for infringement of the national legislation, without having to use beforehand the out-of-court resolution procedures as provided for by national law for such disputes. The Court observes that the directive requires out-of-court dispute resolution procedures to be “adequate and effective”. Therefore, it is for the member states to lay down the detail of those procedures, including whether they are mandatory, whilst ensuring that the directive remains effective. (FG/transl.rt)