Sogefinancement v RW and UV.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2023:177
• Date: 09 March 2023
• Docket Number: C-50/22
• Celex Number: 62022CJ0050
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

9 March 2023 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 2008/48/EC – Credit agreements for consumers – Scope – Right of withdrawal – Article 14(7) – National provisions establishing a period of time during which the performance of the contract may not begin – National procedural rules governing how the national courts raise of their own motion and penalise breaches of those provisions – Article 23 – Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions)

In Case C‑50/22,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France), made by decision of 16 December 2021, received at the Court on 25 January 2022, in the proceedings

Sogefinancement SAS

v

RW,

UV,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of K. Jürimäe, President of the Chamber, M. Safjan (Rapporteur), N. Piçarra, N. Jääskinen and M. Gavalec, Judges,

Advocate General: L. Medina,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Sogefinancement SAS, by S. Mendès-Gil, avocat,

– the French Government, by A.-L. Desjonquères and N. Vincent, acting as Agents,

– the Finnish Government, by A. Laine, acting as Agent,

– the European Commission, by G. Goddin and N. Ruiz García, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Sogefinancement SAS and RW and UV concerning a claim for payment of the outstanding amount due under an agreement for a loan which Sogefinancement had granted to them.

Legal context

European Union law

3 Recitals 9 and 10 of Directive 2008/48 are worded as follows:

‘(9) Full harmonisation is necessary in order to ensure that all consumers in the Community enjoy a high and equivalent level of protection of their interests and to create a genuine internal market. Member States should therefore not be allowed to maintain or introduce national provisions other than those laid down in this Directive. However, such restriction should only apply where there are provisions harmonised in this Directive. Where no such harmonised provisions exist, Member States should remain free to maintain or introduce national legislation. …

(10) The definitions contained in this Directive determine the scope of harmonisation. The obligation on Member States to implement the provisions of this Directive should therefore be limited to its scope as determined by those definitions. …’

4 Article 14 of that directive, headed ‘Right of withdrawal’, provides:

‘1. The consumer shall have a period of 14 calendar days in which to withdraw from the credit agreement without giving any reason.

…

7. This Article shall be without prejudice to any rule of national law establishing a period of time during which the performance of the contract may not begin.’

5 Article 22 of that directive, entitled ‘Harmonisation and imperative nature of this Directive’, provides in paragraph 1:

‘Insofar as this Directive contains harmonised provisions, Member States may not maintain or introduce in their national law provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive.’

6 Article 23 of that directive, entitled ‘Penalties’, provides:

‘Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.’

French law

7 Article L. 311-14 of the code de la consommation (French Consumer Code), in the version before 1 July 2016 (‘the Consumer Code’) provided:

‘During a period of seven days from the borrower’s acceptance of the agreement, no payment in any form or for any reason whatsoever may be made by the lender to the borrower or for the borrower’s account, or by the borrower to the lender.

Nor may the borrower, during that period, make any deposit to the lender or for the lender’s account in respect of the transaction in question.

If the borrower signs a direct debit authorisation in respect of his or her bank account, its validity and entry into effect shall be subject to the validity and entry into effect of the credit agreement.’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

8 On 5 November 2011, Sogefinancement concluded with RW and UV a consumer credit agreement for a sum of EUR 15 362.90 repayable in 84 monthly payments (‘the credit agreement at issue’). On 20 October 2015 the parties agreed to restructure the debt.

9 Hearing an action brought by Sogefinancement seeking, principally, that RW and UV be ordered to pay the outstanding balance owed, the tribunal d’instance du Raincy (District Court, Raincy, France), by a judgment of 25 January 2018, ordered RW and UV to repay the balance of the capital received only, finding that the credit agreement at issue was null and void. To that end, that court raised of its own motion a ground based on the breach of Article L. 311-14 of the Consumer Code by finding that, contrary to that provision, which was a matter of...