{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-209-25", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-209-25)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:d79eaf", "proof": "sha256:f5dc27bef6f74757cad9ba0ee35d741de3ffcc7ee657607fb0cbc69970da428f", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-209-25", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Provisional text", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1 October 2026 ( * )", "paragraphs": [ "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19" ] }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_21", "para_22" ] }, { "title": "Legal context", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "European Union law", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3         Recitals 12, 16 to 19 and 28 of Directive 2011/7 state:", "paragraphs": [ "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "4         Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’, provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_35", "para_36", "para_37" ] }, { "title": "5         According to Article 2 of that directive:", "paragraphs": [ "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45" ] }, { "title": "(a)      the creditor has fulfilled its contractual and legal obligations; and", "paragraphs": [ "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62" ] }, { "title": "Polish law", "paragraphs": [ "para_64", "para_65" ] }, { "title": "(1)      the creditor has performed its contractual obligations;", "paragraphs": [ "para_67" ] }, { "title": "10       Article 10 of that law provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_69" ] }, { "title": "(1)      EUR 40 – if the payment amount does not exceed 5 000 zlotys (PLN);", "paragraphs": [ "para_71", "para_72" ] }, { "title": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81" ] }, { "title": "Consideration of the question referred", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105" ] }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_107" ] }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraphs": [ "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "1 October 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2011/7/EU – Combating late payment in commercial transactions – Article 1(1) and (2) – Scope – Article 2(4) – Concept of ‘late payment’ – Article 6 – Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 as compensation for the creditor’s own recovery costs – Conditions – General principle of EU law prohibiting abuse of rights )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑209/25,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (District Court for the City of Warsaw, Poland), made by decision of 1 July 2024, received at the Court on 18 March 2025, in the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Premium Food Kebab sp. z o.o.", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Cydonia sp. z o.o.,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Third Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "composed of C. Lycourgos, President of the Chamber, O. Spineanu-Matei, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra (Rapporteur) and N. Fenger, Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "–        the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "–        the European Commission, by D. Milanowska and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1) and the general legal principle that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "2         The request has been made in proceedings between Premium Food Kebab sp. z o.o (‘PFK’) and Cydonia sp. z o.o, two Polish companies, concerning an action brought by PFK seeking an order that Cydonia pay a fixed sum of EUR 40 due to the late payment of an invoice.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "European Union law", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "3         Recitals 12, 16 to 19 and 28 of Directive 2011/7 state:", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "‘(12)      Late payment constitutes a breach of contract which has been made financially attractive to debtors in most Member States by low or no interest rates charged on late payments and/or slow procedures for redress. A decisive shift to a culture of prompt payment, including one in which the exclusion of the right to charge interest should always be considered to be a grossly unfair contractual term or practice, is necessary to reverse this trend and to discourage late payment. Such a shift should also include the introduction of specific provisions on payment periods and on the compensation of creditors for the costs incurred, and, inter alia, that the exclusion of the right to compensation for recovery costs should be presumed to be grossly unfair.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "(16)      This Directive should not oblige a creditor to claim interest for late payment. In the event of late payment, this Directive should allow a creditor to resort to charging interest for late payment without giving any prior notice of non-performance or other similar notice reminding the debtor of his obligation to pay.", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "(17)      A debtor’s payment should be regarded as late, for the purposes of entitlement to interest for late payment, where the creditor does not have the sum owed at his disposal on the due date provided that he has fulfilled his legal and contractual obligations.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "(18)      Invoices trigger requests for payment and are important documents in the chain of transactions for the supply of goods and services, inter alia, for determining payment deadlines. …", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "(19)      Fair compensation of creditors for the recovery costs incurred due to late payment is necessary to discourage late payment. Recovery costs should also include the recovery of administrative costs and compensation for internal costs incurred due to late payment for which this Directive should determine a fixed minimum sum which may be cumulated with interest for late payment. Compensation in the form of a fixed sum should aim at limiting the administrative and internal costs linked to the recovery. Compensation for the recovery costs should be determined without prejudice to national provisions according to which a national court may award compensation to the creditor for any additional damage regarding the debtor’s late payment.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "(28)      This Directive should prohibit abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of the creditor. … This Directive should not affect national provisions relating to the way contracts are concluded or regulating the validity of contractual terms which are unfair to the debtor.’", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "4         Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Subject matter and scope’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "‘1.      The aim of this Directive is to combat late payment in commercial transactions, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, thereby fostering the competitiveness of undertakings and in particular of [small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”)].", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "2.      This Directive shall apply to all payments made as remuneration for commercial transactions.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "5         According to Article 2 of that directive:", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "(1)      “commercial transactions” means transactions between undertakings or between undertakings and public authorities which lead to the delivery of goods or the provision of services for remuneration;", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "(4)      “late payment” means payment not made within the contractual or statutory period of payment and where the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) or Article 4(1) are satisfied;", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "6         Article 3 of that directive, entitled ‘Transactions between undertakings’, is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "‘1.      Member States shall ensure that, in commercial transactions between undertakings, the creditor is entitled to interest for late payment without the necessity of a reminder, where the following conditions are satisfied:", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "(a)      the creditor has fulfilled its contractual and legal obligations; and", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "(b)      the creditor has not received the amount due on time, unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "3.      Where the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are satisfied, Member States shall ensure the following:", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "(a)      that the creditor is entitled to interest for late payment from the day following the date or the end of the period for payment fixed in the contract;", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "5.      Member States shall ensure that the period for payment fixed in the contract does not exceed 60 calendar days, unless otherwise expressly agreed in the contract and provided it is not grossly unfair to the creditor within the meaning of Article 7.’", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "7         Article 6 of Directive 2011/7, entitled ‘Compensation for recovery costs’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "‘1.      Member States shall ensure that, where interest for late payment becomes payable in commercial transactions in accordance with Article 3 or 4, the creditor is entitled to obtain for the debtor, as a minimum, a fixed sum of EUR 40.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "2.      Member States shall ensure that the fixed sum referred to in paragraph 1 is payable without the necessity of a reminder and as compensation for the creditor’s own recovery costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "3.      The creditor shall, in addition to the fixed sum referred to in paragraph 1, be entitled to obtain reasonable compensation from the debtor for any recovery costs exceeding that fixed sum and incurred due to the debtor’s late payment. This could include expenses incurred, inter alia, in instructing a lawyer or employing a debt collection agency.’", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "8         Article 7 of the directive, entitled ‘Unfair contractual terms and practices’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "‘Member States shall provide that a contractual term or a practice relating to the date or period for payment, the rate of interest for late payment or the compensation for recovery costs is either unenforceable or gives rise to a claim for damages if it is grossly unfair to the creditor.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "In determining whether a contractual term or a practice is grossly unfair to the creditor, within the meaning of the first subparagraph, all circumstances of the case shall be considered, including:", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "(c)      whether the debtor has any objective reason to deviate from […] the fixed sum as referred to in Article 6(1).’", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Polish law", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "9         The ustawa o przeciwdziałaniu nadmiernym opóźnieniom w transakcjach handlowych (Law on counteracting excessive delays in commercial transactions) of 8 March 2013 (Dz. U. de 2013, item 403), in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings (Dz. U. de 2022, item 893), which transposed Directive 2011/7 into the Polish legal order, provides, in Article 7(1) thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "‘Save in the case where the debtor is a public authority, the creditor in a commercial transaction shall be entitled, without the need for a reminder, and unless the parties have agreed on a higher rate of interest, to statutory interest for late payment for the period running from the date on which payment is due to the date on which it is made, if the following cumulative conditions are satisfied:", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "(1)      the creditor has performed its contractual obligations;", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "(2)      the creditor has not received payment within the period specified by the contract.’", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "10       Article 10 of that law provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "‘1.      From the date on which it acquires the right to interest as referred to in Article 7(1) or Article 8(1), the creditor shall be entitled to obtain from the debtor, without the need for a reminder, compensation for recovery costs, which shall be equivalent to:", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "(1)      EUR 40 – if the payment amount does not exceed 5 000 zlotys (PLN);", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "2.      In addition to the amount referred to in paragraph 1, the creditor shall also be entitled to a refund, in a reasonable amount, of the recovery costs incurred in excess of that amount.’", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "11       In August 2020, Cydonia purchased food from PFK, one of its regular suppliers, for its catering business. The invoice submitted by PFK for that purchase was PLN 4 874.60 (approximately EUR 1 218.00) and had to be paid by 3 September 2020. Cydonia paid that invoice on 8 September 2020.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "12       On 23 May 2023, PFK brought an action before the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (District Court for the City of Warsaw, Poland), which is the referring court, seeking an order that Cydonia pay it a fixed sum of EUR 40, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7. PFK did not seek default interest on the amount of its claim, which was due, in its view, from 4 September 2020.", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "13       That court notes that, on the date that the invoice was issued, PFK and Cydonia had had a stable business relationship for four years, in the context of which goods were delivered several times a week and payment of which sometimes occurred several days late, without PFK claiming default interest from Cydonia. It adds that, in October 2022, at the time of the transfer of all of the shares in PFK to Funds Get Support spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością, a company established in Warsaw, Cydonia was not found to be in arrears. According to the referring court, that assignee company is not, moreover, financially sound.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "14       The referring court is of the view that PFK acted unfairly by claiming payment of a fixed minimum sum several years after the end of its business relationship with Cydonia, following the acquisition of PFK by a new company. It states that PFK submitted hundreds of other requests for payment of the same amount from Cydonia, without claiming interest on the principal claims, for the sole purpose of obtaining additional earnings from a former contracting partner with which it had never had a real payment dispute.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "15       In such circumstances, the referring court is uncertain as to the consequences to be drawn from the Court’s case-law relating to the conditions for payment of the fixed minimum sum provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2011/7. It considers that that case-law is liable to encourage creditors to make overt use of the provisions of Article 6 for their own purposes and that that article cannot be interpreted as precluding a national court from dismissing a claim for payment of a fixed sum where, although the applicant has established late payment, the circumstances in which that claim is made indicate that it is unfair and contrary to the objectives pursued by that directive. The national court should therefore assess such a claim in the light of an individual right, including a right enshrined in EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "16       The referring court is of the view, moreover, that any request for payment of a fixed sum should be accompanied by a request for the payment of appropriate default interest and that the unconditional award of that compensation, including in situations where the delay in payment is negligible, should be regarded as abusive in the context of a firmly established business relationship.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "17       In those circumstances the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (District Court for the City of Warsaw) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "‘Must Article 6(1) of [Directive 2011/7] be interpreted as meaning that a national court may refuse to award fixed-sum compensation for recovery costs when the circumstances in which the party entitled claimed the compensation indicate that the compensation sought is not fair, and that seeking compensation for recovery costs is contrary to the objectives of the directive?’", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Consideration of the question referred", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "18       By its single question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7 must be interpreted as precluding a national court of a Member State from dismissing a claim by a creditor for payment of the fixed minimum sum provided for in that provision, in circumstances where, due to its conduct, that creditor infringed the general legal principle that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "19       At the outset, it must be observed, first, that the referring court does not rule out, in the light of the circumstances of the case at issue in the main proceedings, that Cydonia was not in a situation of late payment, within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Directive 2011/7 vis-à-vis PFK and therefore the latter was not entitled to require payment of the fixed sum of EUR 40 provided for in Article 6(1) of that directive.", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "20       Second, the referring court notes that PFK tolerated occasional and minor late payments by Cydonia, on the ground that it apparently considered it more advantageous not to claim default interest in order to retain Cydonia as a customer.", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "21       It is thus for the referring court to ascertain whether, by that conduct, PFK implicitly acknowledged that Cydonia was not in a situation of ‘late payment’, within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Directive 2011/7, at the time that it paid the invoice at issue in the main proceedings, or whether, by that conduct, PFK had waived the rights that it derives from Article 6(1) of that directive, such a waiver being compatible with that directive, provided that it is freely agreed to (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 February 2017, IOS Finance EFC , C‑555/14, EU:C:2017:121, paragraphs 33 and 34).", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "22       That said, it should be noted that the objective of Directive 2011/7, in accordance with Article 1 thereof, read in the light of recital 28 of that directive, is to combat late payment in commercial transactions. That directive prohibits abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of the creditor, without, however, ‘[affecting] national provisions relating to the way contracts are concluded or regulating the validity of contractual terms which are unfair to the debtor’.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "23       The concept of ‘late payment’ is defined in Article 2(4) of that directive as payment not made within the contractual or statutory period of payment. As is apparent from recital 18 of that directive, invoices, which trigger requests for payment and are important documents in the chain of commercial transactions, are of particular importance for the purposes of determining those payment periods.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "24       Since Directive 2011/7 covers, in accordance with Article 1(2) thereof, ‘all payments made as remuneration for commercial transactions’, as defined in Article 2(1) thereof, the concept of ‘late payment’ is applicable to each commercial transaction considered individually (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2024, Skarb Państwa (Payment not significantly delayed or small claim) , C‑279/23, EU:C:2024:605, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "25       Article 3(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with recitals 16 and 17 thereof, provides that, in commercial transactions between undertakings, a creditor who has fulfilled its obligations and who has not received the amount due on time is entitled to interest for late payment, without the necessity of a reminder, unless the debtor is not responsible for that delay. That interest, like the fixed minimum sum, is to become payable automatically upon expiry of the period for payment laid down in Article 3(3) and (5) of that directive, provided that the conditions set out in Article 3(1) thereof are satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "26       Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7, which refers, inter alia, to Article 3 of that directive, provides that, where interest for late payment becomes payable in commercial transactions, the creditor is entitled to obtain from the debtor, as a minimum, a fixed sum of EUR 40, by way of compensation for recovery costs. In accordance with Article 6(2), that fixed sum is payable without the necessity of a reminder addressed to the debtor, and as compensation for the creditor’s own recovery costs. Under Article 6(3) of that directive, the creditor is, in addition to that fixed sum, to be entitled to obtain reasonable compensation from the debtor for any recovery costs exceeding that fixed sum, such as the expenses incurred, inter alia, in instructing a lawyer or employing a debt collection agency.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "27       In the first place, it is apparent from a literal and contextual interpretation of Article 6(1) of that directive that the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 is due to the creditor, which has fulfilled its obligations, for each payment not made on time as remuneration for a commercial transaction, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, whatever the amount of the claim concerned by the delay in making payment or the length of that delay (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2024, Skarb Państwa (Payment not significantly delayed or small claim) , C‑279/23, EU:C:2024:605, paragraph 26).", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "28       In the second place, that interpretation is confirmed by the aim of Directive 2011/7. In accordance with Article 1(1), read in the light of recitals 12 and 19 thereof, that directive is intended not only to discourage late payment, by preventing it from being financially attractive for the debtor because of the low or lack of interest being charged in such a situation, but also to protect the creditor effectively against such late payment (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2024, Skarb Państwa (Payment not significantly delayed or small claim) , C‑279/23, EU:C:2024:605, paragraph 27).", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "29       In that context, the negligible nature of the late payment cannot justify either the exemption of a debtor who has not paid his debt by the due date for payment of the fixed minimum sum, or the reduction of that amount, which is due as compensation for recovery costs for each late payment for which the debtor alone is liable. That exemption or reduction would deprive Article 6 of Directive 2011/7, the objective of which is not only to provide compensation, through that sum, ‘for the creditor’s own recovery costs’, but also to discourage those late payments, of any practical effect (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 May 2023, ALD Automotive , C‑78/22, EU:C:2023:379, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited, and of 11 July 2024, Skarb Państwa (Payment not significantly delayed or small claim) , C‑279/23, EU:C:2024:605, paragraph 28).", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "30       In addition, the exemption of a debtor from payment of the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40, provided for in Article 6(1) of that directive, would be equivalent to granting the debtor a derogation from that provision, which would effectively exempt the debtor from the financial burden arising from the debtor’s obligation to pay such an amount in respect of each payment not paid on time, without that derogation being justified by any ‘objective reason’, within the meaning of point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of that directive (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 May 2023, ALD Automotive , C‑78/22, EU:C:2023:379, paragraph 28, and of 11 July 2024, Skarb Państwa (Payment not significantly delayed or small claim) , C‑279/23, EU:C:2024:605, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "31       In the present case, the referring court is of the view that, in addition to determining the deadline for payment agreed by the parties to the main proceedings and the existence of a failure to comply by the debtor, it is for that court to examine PFK’s request for payment of the fixed sum of EUR 40 in the light of ‘an individual right, including a right enshrined in EU law’, since, in its view, PFK seeks to make use of the provisions of Directive 2011/7 for the sole purpose of obtaining additional earnings from Cydonia, its debtor.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "32       It follows from the general principle of EU law prohibiting individuals from relying on EU law for fraudulent or abusive ends that a Member State must refuse, even in the absence of provisions of national law providing for such a refusal, to grant the benefit of the provisions of EU law where they are relied upon by a person not with a view to achieving the objectives of those provisions, but with the aim of benefiting from an advantage granted to that person by EU law when the objective conditions required for obtaining the advantage sought, prescribed by EU law, are met only formally (judgment of 30 October 2025, Mercedes-Benz Bank and Volkswagen Bank , C‑143/23, EU:C:2025:837, paragraphs 78 and 80 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "33       Proof of an abusive practice requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the EU rules, the purpose of those laws has not been achieved and, secondly, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it (judgment of 30 October 2025, Mercedes-Benz Bank and Volkswagen Bank , C‑143/23, EU:C:2025:837, paragraph 81 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "34       Although it is for the referring court to verify the existence of an abusive practice in the disputes pending before it, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may, however, provide that court with all the elements of interpretation of EU law intended to facilitate its assessment (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 October 2025, Mercedes-Benz Bank and Volkswagen Bank , C‑143/23, EU:C:2025:837, paragraph 82).", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "35       In the present case, it should be noted, as the Commission did in its written observations, that, first, the recognition, in favour of PFK, of the right to payment of the fixed sum is such as to contribute to the attainment of the objectives pursued by Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7, as set out in paragraph 28 of the present judgment, by discouraging late payment, by preventing those delays from being financially attractive to the debtor because of the low level or the failure to charge default interest, and by providing the creditor with the fullest possible compensation for the creditor’s own recovery costs. Second, the mere exercise of the right provided for in that provision cannot be equated with the artificial creation of a situation in which the conditions for exercising the right to compensation are only formally satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "36       Moreover, as is apparent from recital 16 of that directive, the creditor is entitled to claim the fixed sum provided for under Article 6(1) of that directive, irrespective of any claim for the payment of default interest.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "37       Furthermore, no provision of that directive makes the exercise of that right subject to compliance with a specific time limit. In that regard, the Court has previously held that Directive 2011/7 does not govern the conditions under which the claims corresponding, inter alia, to the fixed minimum sum may, where appropriate, be extinguished (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 December 2025, E. (Set-off of claims) , C‑481/24, EU:C:2025:996, paragraph 34).", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "38       Thus, the detailed procedural rules designed to ensure the protection of the rights that individuals acquire under EU law are a matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, in accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, provided that those arrangements are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness) (see, by analogy, judgment of 16 July 2026, Bukla , C‑26/25, EU:C:2026:593, paragraph 105 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "39       Furthermore, in the light of the case-law referred to in paragraphs 27 to 30 above, neither the allegedly negligible nature of the late payment, nor the submission of other claims for payment of the fixed sum provided for in Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7 in similar circumstances, nor the fact that the business relationship between PFK and Cydonia ended several years ago, nor the purchase of PFK by a financially unreliable undertaking, are sufficient, in themselves, to substantiate the existence of an abusive practice within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraphs 32 and 33 above, capable of calling into question the creditor’s right to obtain, for each late payment attributable to the debtor, the fixed minimum sum provided for in that provision as compensation for recovery costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "40       In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7 must be interpreted as not precluding a court of a Member State from dismissing a claim by a creditor for payment of a fixed minimum sum provided for in that provision, in circumstances where, due to its conduct, that creditor infringed the general legal principle that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends. Proof of an abusive practice requires, however, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the EU rules, the purpose of those laws has not been achieved and, secondly, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "41       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as not precluding a national court of a Member State from dismissing a claim by a creditor for payment of a fixed minimum sum provided for in that provision, in circumstances where, due to its conduct, that creditor infringed the general legal principle that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends. Proof of an abusive practice requires, however, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the EU rules, the purpose of those laws has not been achieved and, secondly, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: Polish.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" } ], "word_count": 4656, "cites": [ "C-209/25", "C-555/14", "C-279/23", "C-78/22", "C-143/23", "C-481/24", "C-26/25" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "63aa7d33d78862640c7cf47b3dab9cafaaa65764660c219ba0570f4f7db7820a", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CJ0209", "fetched_at": "2026-10-02T12:14:51.254+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-209-25", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-209-25", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-209-25", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-209-25" }, "hash": "sha256:f5dc27bef6f74757cad9ba0ee35d741de3ffcc7ee657607fb0cbc69970da428f", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "expires": "2026-10-05T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-04+legal-2026-10-04+2026-10-04T19:14:59", "content_hash": "sha256:f5dc27bef6f74757cad9ba0ee35d741de3ffcc7ee657607fb0cbc69970da428f", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-04T20:30:13.432Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-209-25", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }