The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled on Thursday, 12 January, that a clause in a contract for the provision of legal services that sets the cost on the basis of an hourly rate, without including any other details, does not satisfy the requirement of being drafted in plain, intelligible language, which is included in European Union law.
The court’s judgment arises from a question raised by the Supreme Court of Lithuania in the context of a dispute between a consumer and a lawyer who had signed five contracts for legal services (case C-395/21).
According to these contracts, the lawyer’s fees were calculated based on an hourly rate set at €100 [per hour] for consultations or legal services provided to the consumer.
When the lawyer did not receive the full amount of the fees claimed, she brought the case before the Lithuanian courts, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
When the latter asked about how to interpret the provisions in EU law that intend to protect consumers from unfair terms in contracts, the CJEU finally ruled that the requirement that a clause in a contract for the provision of legal services be drafted in plain, intelligible language must be understood in a broad sense.
The judgment points out that the information a professional is thus required to provide before the contract is signed must include particulars that enable the consumer to assess the approximate total cost of the services in question.
The court found that a clause setting the price on the basis of an hourly rate—where information enabling the consumer to take a prudent decision in full knowledge of the economic consequences is not provided to him or her in advance—does not satisfy the requirement of being drafted in plain, intelligible language.
The CJEU notes that it nevertheless falls to the national court to recognise the unfairness of such a clause, specifically by assessing the possible existence of a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.
In its view, the clause at the heart of the dispute thus should not be considered unfair simply on the grounds that it does not satisfy the transparency requirement, unless national regulations expressly provide for classification as an unfair clause on those grounds alone.
See the judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/4v2 (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)