PARALLEL TEXTS
La Corte precisa le condizioni alle quali è compatibile con il diritto dell’Unione la decadenza dagli interessi convenzionali, quale sanzione per la violazione, da parte del creditore, del suo obbligo precontrattuale di verificare la solvibilità del debitore
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-39_en.htm
Italiano tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-14-39_it.htm
Data documento: 27-04-2014
1 |
The Court clarifies the conditions under which application of the forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest is, as a penalty for a creditor’s breach of its pre-contractual obligation to assess a borrower’s creditworthiness, compatible with EU law
|
La Corte precisa le condizioni alle quali è compatibile con il diritto dell’Unione la decadenza dagli interessi convenzionali, quale sanzione per la violazione, da parte del creditore, del suo obbligo precontrattuale di verificare la solvibilità del debitore
|
2 |
French law provides that a creditor which has failed to properly assess a borrower’s creditworthiness prior to the conclusion of a credit agreement can no longer claim contractual interest. However, interest at the statutory rate remains automatically due and must be increased by five percentage points if the borrower has failed to settle his debt in full in the two months following an enforceable judicial decision.
|
La normativa francese prevede che un creditore il quale, prima della conclusione del contratto di prestito, non abbia correttamente verificato la solvibilità del debitore, non possa più fare valere gli interessi convenzionali, fermo restando che gli interessi al tasso legale rimangono dovuti di pieno diritto e devono essere maggiorati di cinque punti qualora il debitore non abbia saldato integralmente il suo debito nei due mesi successivi ad una decisione giudiziaria esecutiva.
|
3 |
In 2011, Mr Kalhan entered into a consumer credit agreement with Le Crédit Lyonnais (LCL) for a loan of €38 000, subject to contractual interest at an annual fixed rate of 5.60%.
|
Nel 2011, il sig. Kalhan ha stipulato con Le Crédit Lyonnais (LCL) un contratto di credito al consumo di EUR 38 000, con interessi convenzionali ad un tasso annuo fisso del 5,60%.
|
4 |
As Mr Kalhan was unable to repay that loan, LCL brought an action before the tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (District Court, Orléans) seeking payment of the outstanding amount.
|
Vista l’incapacità del sig. Kalhan di rimborsare tale prestito, LCL ha reclamato l’importo ancora dovuto dinanzi al tribunal d’instance d’Orléans.
|
5 |
That national court points out that LCL did not properly assess Mr Kalhan’s creditworthiness, with the result that it cannot claim contractual interest under French law.
|
Detto tribunale rileva che LCL non ha correttamente verificato la solvibilità del sig. Kalhan, sicché in base alla normativa francese non può pretendere gli interessi convenzionali.
|
6 |
However, the national court notes that interest at the statutory rate, which is applicable in place of the contractual interest, amounts to 5.71% for 2012 (including the increase of five percentage points), which, far from constituting a penalty for the creditor, confers an advantage on it.
|
Tuttavia, il tribunale osserva che gli interessi al tasso legale, che trovano applicazione in luogo degli interessi convenzionali, per il 2012 ammontano al 5,71% (maggiorazione di cinque punti compresa), il che, lungi dal costituire una sanzione per il creditore, gli procura un beneficio.
|
7 |
The national court therefore asks whether the French system of penalties is compatible with EU law, in particular with Directive 2008/48, which provides, inter alia, that the penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions relating to the pre-contractual assessment of a borrower’s creditworthiness must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
|
Il tribunale si chiede dunque se il regime sanzionatorio francese sia compatibile con il diritto dell’Unione, in particolare con la direttiva 2008/48 che prevede, fra l’altro, che le sanzioni applicabili in caso di violazione delle disposizioni nazionali in materia di verifica precontrattuale della solvibilità del debitore debbano essere efficaci, proporzionate e dissuasive.
|
8 |
Addressing that question, the Court of Justice points out that, under Directive 2008/48, in order to ensure effective protection of consumers against the irresponsible granting of credit agreements, a creditor is required, before entering into any agreement, to assess a borrower’s creditworthiness and that the Member States are required to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive measures to penalise any failure to comply with that obligation.
|
Investita di tale questione, la Corte di giustizia ricorda che, conformemente alla direttiva 2008/48, ai fini di una tutela effettiva dei consumatori contro qualsiasi concessione irresponsabile di contratti di credito, il creditore è tenuto, prima di ogni rapporto contrattuale, a verificare la solvibilità del debitore ed è compito degli Stati membri prevedere misure efficaci, proporzionate e dissuasive per sanzionare ogni inadempimento di tale obbligo.
|
9 |
The Court therefore examines whether the severity of the penalty provided for by the French legislation (namely the forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest) is commensurate with the seriousness of the infringement for which it is imposed and, in particular, whether such a penalty has a genuinely dissuasive effect.
|
La Corte esamina dunque se la severità della sanzione prevista dalla normativa francese (ossia la decadenza dal diritto agli interessi convenzionali) sia adeguata alla gravità della violazione che essa reprime e, in particolare, se essa comporti un effetto realmente dissuasivo.
|
10 |
In this respect, the Court notes that, in the case where the outstanding amount of the principal sum is immediately repayable as a result of the borrower’s default, the referring court must compare the amounts which the creditor would have received if it had complied with its pre-contractual obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness with the amounts which it would receive following application of the abovementioned penalty.
|
A tal riguardo, la Corte dichiara che, nel caso in cui il capitale ancora dovuto sia immediatamente esigibile a causa dell’inadempimento del debitore, il giudice del rinvio deve raffrontare gli importi che il creditore avrebbe riscosso nell’ipotesi in cui avesse osservato il suo obbligo di valutazione precontrattuale con quelli che riscuoterebbe in applicazione della sanzione.
|
11 |
If the referring court were to conclude that the application of the penalty is liable to confer an advantage on the creditor, it follows that the system of penalties in question does not have a genuinely dissuasive effect.
|
Qualora il giudice del rinvio dovesse constatare che l’applicazione della sanzione può conferire un beneficio al creditore, ne discenderebbe che il regime sanzionatorio in esame non garantisce un effetto realmente dissuasivo.
|
12 |
The Court also notes that the penalty in question cannot be regarded as genuinely dissuasive if the amounts which the creditor is likely to receive following application of the penalty are not significantly lower than those which it could have received if it had complied with its obligation.
|
Peraltro, la Corte precisa che la sanzione non può essere considerata realmente dissuasiva se gli importi che possono essere riscossi dal creditore in seguito all’applicazione della sanzione non sono notevolmente inferiori a quelli di cui potrebbe beneficiare in caso di osservanza del suo obbligo.
|
13 |
If the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to interest is weakened, or even entirely undermined, the penalty will not be genuinely dissuasive, contrary to the provisions of Directive 2008/48.
|
Qualora la sanzione della decadenza dagli interessi fosse mitigata ovvero puramente e semplicemente azzerata, la sanzione non presenterebbe un carattere realmente dissuasivo, in violazione delle disposizioni della direttiva 2008/48.
|
14 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
15 |
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
|
Il rinvio pregiudiziale consente ai giudici degli Stati membri, nell'ambito di una controversia della quale sono investiti, di interpellare la Corte in merito all’interpretazione del diritto dell’Unione o alla validità di un atto dell’Unione.
|
16 |
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
|
La Corte non risolve la controversia nazionale.
|
17 |
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. |
Spetta al giudice nazionale risolvere la causa conformemente alla decisione della Corte. Tale decisione vincola egualmente gli altri giudici nazionali ai quali venga sottoposto un problema simile. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
••
The Court clarifies the conditions under which application of the
forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest is, as a penalty for a
creditor’s breach of its pre-contractual obligation to assess a borrower’s
creditworthiness, compatible with EU law
French law provides that a creditor which has failed to properly assess a
borrower’s creditworthiness prior to the conclusion of a credit agreement can no
longer claim contractual interest. However, interest at the statutory rate
remains automatically due and must be increased by five percentage points if the
borrower has failed to settle his debt in full in the two months following an
enforceable judicial decision.
In 2011, Mr Kalhan entered into a consumer credit agreement with Le Crédit
Lyonnais (LCL) for a loan of €38 000, subject to contractual interest at an
annual fixed rate of 5.60%.
As Mr Kalhan was unable to repay that loan, LCL brought an action before the
tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (District Court, Orléans) seeking payment of the
outstanding amount.
That national court points out that LCL did not properly assess Mr Kalhan’s
creditworthiness, with the result that it cannot claim contractual interest
under French law.
However, the national court notes that interest at the statutory rate, which
is applicable in place of the contractual interest, amounts to 5.71% for 2012
(including the increase of five percentage points), which, far from constituting
a penalty for the creditor, confers an advantage on it.
The national court therefore asks whether the French system of penalties is
compatible with EU law, in particular with Directive 2008/48, which provides,
inter alia, that the penalties applicable to infringements of the national
provisions relating to the pre-contractual assessment of a borrower’s
creditworthiness must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Addressing that question, the Court of Justice points out that, under
Directive 2008/48, in order to ensure effective protection of consumers against
the irresponsible granting of credit agreements, a creditor is required, before
entering into any agreement, to assess a borrower’s creditworthiness and that
the Member States are required to establish effective, proportionate and
dissuasive measures to penalise any failure to comply with that obligation.
The Court therefore examines whether the severity of the penalty provided for
by the French legislation (namely the forfeiture of entitlement to contractual
interest) is commensurate with the seriousness of the infringement for which it
is imposed and, in particular, whether such a penalty has a genuinely dissuasive
effect.
In this respect, the Court notes that, in the case where the outstanding
amount of the principal sum is immediately repayable as a result of the
borrower’s default, the referring court must compare the amounts which the
creditor would have received if it had complied with its pre-contractual
obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness with the amounts which it
would receive following application of the abovementioned penalty.
If the referring court were to conclude that the application of the penalty
is liable to confer an advantage on the creditor, it follows that the system of
penalties in question does not have a genuinely dissuasive effect.
The Court also notes that the penalty in question cannot be regarded as
genuinely dissuasive if the amounts which the creditor is likely to receive
following application of the penalty are not significantly lower than those
which it could have received if it had complied with its obligation.
If the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to interest is weakened, or even
entirely undermined, the penalty will not be genuinely dissuasive, contrary to
the provisions of Directive 2008/48.
NOTE:
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the
Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer
questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law
or the validity of a European Union act.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance
with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts
or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
|