{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-459-25", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-459-25)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:d79eaf", "proof": "sha256:bdabbda36913cbeac29f28d58dd4ac782c88a97c4c514c6d535903f61685253f", "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-459-25", "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 (Ninth Chamber)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1 October 2026 ( * )", "paragraphs": [ "para_4", "para_5", "para_6" ] }, { "title": "Stichting Woonstichting Lieven de Key", "paragraphs": [ "para_8" ] }, { "title": "BS", "paragraphs": [ "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         The thirteenth recital of Directive 93/13 states:", "paragraphs": [ "para_26" ] }, { "title": "4         Article 1(2) of that directive provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_28" ] }, { "title": "5         Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_30" ] }, { "title": "6         Article 7(1) of that directive is worded as follows:", "paragraphs": [ "para_32" ] }, { "title": "7         Under Article 8b of Directive 93/13:", "paragraphs": [ "para_34", "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "Netherlands law", "paragraphs": [ "para_38", "para_39" ] }, { "title": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53" ] }, { "title": "Consideration of the question referred", "paragraphs": [ "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79" ] }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_81" ] }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "1 October 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Lease agreement – Clause attributing all the legal costs to the tenant in the event of a failure by that tenant to fulfil his contractual obligations – Effects of a finding that that clause constitutes an unfair term – Application of supplementary provisions of national law – Allocation and taxation of costs in judicial proceedings – Procedural autonomy of the Member States – Principle of effectiveness )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑459/25,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), made by decision of 4 July 2025, received at the Court on 11 July 2025, in the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Stichting Woonstichting Lieven de Key", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "BS", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "composed of M. Condinanzi, President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen and A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Advocate General: D. Spielmann,", "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": "–        Stichting Woonstichting Lieven de Key, by R.L.M.M. Tan, advocaat,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "–        the European Commission, by Ph. Kienapfel and F. van Schaik, 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), Article 7(1) and Article 8b of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 (OJ 2019 L 328, p. 7) (‘Directive 93/13’).", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "2         The request has been made in proceedings between Stichting Woonstichting Lieven de Key (‘LdK’), a legal person governed by Netherlands law engaged in the letting of immovable property, on the one hand, and BS, a natural person, on the other, concerning the termination of the lease agreement concluded between BS and LdK, the payment of a user fee and the reimbursement of judicial and extrajudicial costs incurred by LdK.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "European Union law", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "3         The thirteenth recital of Directive 93/13 states:", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "‘Whereas the statutory or regulatory provisions of the Member States which directly or indirectly determine the terms of consumer contracts are presumed not to contain unfair terms; whereas, therefore, it does not appear to be necessary to subject the terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions and the principles or provisions of international conventions to which the Member States or the Community are party; whereas in that respect the wording “mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions” in Article 1(2) also covers rules which, according to the law, shall apply between the contracting parties provided that no other arrangements have been established’.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "4         Article 1(2) of that directive provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "‘The contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions and the provisions or principles of international conventions to which the Member States or the Community are party, particularly in the transport area, shall not be subject to the provisions of this Directive.’", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "5         Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "‘Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms.’", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "6         Article 7(1) of that directive is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "‘Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers.’", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "7         Under Article 8b of Directive 93/13:", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "‘1.      Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "2.      Member States may restrict such penalties to situations where the contractual terms are expressly defined as unfair in all circumstances in national law or where a seller or supplier continues to use contractual terms that have been found to be unfair in a final decision taken in accordance with Article 7(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Netherlands law", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "8         Article 237(1) of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Code of Civil Procedure), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Code of Civil Procedure’), provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "9         Article 242 of that code empowers the court to moderate of its own motion the amount of the legal costs stipulated by contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "10       LdK, in its capacity as leasing owner, leased a parking space to BS.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "11       Under Article 11.1 of the lease agreement concluded between LdK and BS, in the event of failure by the tenant to comply with a provision of that agreement or with a provision of law, all costs incurred by the lessor in the performance of that agreement, including administrative costs, as well as all judicial and extrajudicial costs, are to be borne by the tenant.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "12       Following BS’s failure to pay rent and several letters of formal notice, LdK brought an action against him before the kantonrechter (District Court, Cantonal Sector, Netherlands) seeking the termination of the lease agreement, the eviction of BS from the parking space concerned and an order requiring him to pay the sum of EUR 482.50 (including extrajudicial costs), as well as a user fee until his actual eviction, together with the costs relating to the judicial proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "13       BS did not appear at the proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "14       By an interim judgment of 23 April 2024, the kantonrechter (District Court, Cantonal Sector) held that Article 11.1 of the lease agreement had to be classified as an unfair term inasmuch as it attributed the extrajudicial costs to the tenant. As regards the attribution to the tenant of all the judicial costs, that court provisionally adopted the same classification, inter alia, on the ground that that clause had the consequence that the amount of those costs could exceed that fixed by a national scale imposing a ceiling in respect of the costs which the unsuccessful party may be ordered to pay in judicial proceedings. According to that court, the lessor could, on the basis of Article 11.1 of the lease agreement, require the tenant to pay all the judicial costs, including in the event of amicable settlements reached after the issuance of the writ of summons or even after the delivery of a judgment moderating the amount of those costs. Accordingly, that clause would be likely to lead to a contractual imbalance between the parties to the agreement. In those circumstances, the kantonrechter (District Court, Cantonal Sector) provisionally held that it was not appropriate to substitute the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the allocation and taxation of costs in civil judicial proceedings for the contractual clause at issue in the main proceedings, as such a substitution would deprive Directive 93/13 of its deterrent effect.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "15       By another interlocutory judgment of 16 July 2024, the kantonrechter (District Court, Cantonal Sector) referred two questions to the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) – which is the referring court – for a preliminary ruling, with the first of those questions relating to the unfairness of Article 11.1 of the lease agreement and the second relating to the possibility – in the event that Article 11.1 is declared unfair – of ordering the consumer to pay the costs under Article 237(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the unsuccessful party in judicial proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "16       As regards the first question, the referring court classified Article 11.1 of the lease agreement as an unfair term, with the result that it was not binding on the consumer, and held that the lease agreement was nonetheless capable of continuing in existence without that clause.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "17       As regards the second question, that court asks whether the consumer may be ordered to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 237(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the event that he is unsuccessful in the main proceedings. The referring court considers that it is apparent from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 January 2021, Dexia Nederland (C‑229/19 and C‑289/19, EU:C:2021:68), that, where a contract is capable of continuing in existence in the absence of the unfair term concerned, the national court may not replace that term with a supplementary provision of national law, and seeks to ascertain whether Article 237(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure may be classified as such.", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "18       In that regard, the referring court specifies that that provision is hybrid in nature. First, it could be classified as a ‘procedural rule’, as it is not intended to govern the balance of the contractual relationship and is addressed solely to the court, which is to order the party who has essentially been unsuccessful to pay the costs. Second, it could be classified as a supplementary rule of national law, as the contracting parties could derogate from it contractually either by providing that, in the event of proceedings between them, the unsuccessful party in judicial proceedings must bear all the legal costs, including those relating to the order for costs, or, conversely, by excluding such an obligation.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "19       In addition, it is apparent, in essence, from the order for reference that, where the contracting parties have agreed that the unsuccessful party in judicial proceedings must pay all the legal costs, Article 242(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to moderate the amount of those costs of its own motion.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "20       Lastly, the referring court questions whether relying on the national rules on the award of costs against the unsuccessful party in judicial proceedings is compatible with the objective of Directive 93/13. According to that court, allowing the seller or supplier to benefit from those rules after the unfair term has been annulled could eliminate the deterrent effect sought by that directive as regards the use of such terms, whereas the non-application of those rules could constitute an appropriate penalty.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "21       In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "‘Where a seller includes an unfair legal costs clause in a contract and the contract is capable of continuing in existence after the deletion of the legal costs clause, must Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8b of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as precluding a consumer who is unsuccessful in legal proceedings from being ordered to pay the seller’s legal costs in accordance with national procedural law, from which the unfair legal costs clause deviated to the detriment of the consumer?’", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "Consideration of the question referred", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "22       As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it. It is for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the order for reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (see judgments of 29 November 1978, Redmond , 83/78, EU:C:1978:214, paragraph 26, and of 25 February 2025, Alphabet and Others , C‑233/23, EU:C:2025:110, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "23       In the present case, as regards the relevance of Article 8b of Directive 93/13, to which reference is made in the question referred, for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings, it should be borne in mind that that provision requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions transposing that directive. However, the dispute in the main proceedings does not concern the imposition on the seller or supplier concerned of a fine or other penalty for such an infringement; a fact which renders Article 8b of Directive 93/13 irrelevant for the purpose of resolving that dispute.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "24       Accordingly, it must be held that, by its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 are to be interpreted as meaning that, where a contractual clause requiring a consumer to pay all the legal costs relating to proceedings resulting from his or her failure to fulfil one of his or her obligations arising under a lease agreement or imposed by law has been declared unfair and, consequently, void, but the agreement in question is nonetheless capable of continuing in existence without that clause, those provisions preclude that consumer, who is unsuccessful in judicial proceedings, from being ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the national procedural law governing the allocation and taxation of costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "25       In that regard, it should be noted that the purpose of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, and in particular of its second part, is not to annul all contracts containing unfair terms, but to replace the formal balance which the contract establishes between the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract with an effective balance capable of restoring equality between them, it being specified that the contract in question must, in principle, continue in existence without any modification other than that resulting from the removal of the unfair terms. Provided that the latter condition is satisfied, the contract in question may, under Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, be maintained in so far as, in accordance with the rules of national law, such a continuation of the contract without the unfair terms is legally possible, which must be verified according to an objective approach (judgment of 8 December 2022, GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio , C‑625/21, EU:C:2022:971, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "26       The exceptional possibility of replacing an unfair term which has been annulled with a supplementary national provision is limited to situations in which the removal of that unfair term would oblige the national court to invalidate the contract in question as a whole, thereby exposing the consumer concerned to particularly harmful consequences, with the result that that consumer would thus be penalised (judgment of 8 December 2022, GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio , C‑625/21, EU:C:2022:971, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "27       It follows that, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a contract may remain in force after the removal of unfair terms, the national court cannot replace those terms with a supplementary national provision (judgment of 8 December 2022, GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio , C‑625/21, EU:C:2022:971, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "28       Where a contract contains an unfair term, the impossibility of replacing that term with a supplementary provision of national law aims to ensure that the long-term objective of Article 7 of Directive 93/13, which is to prevent the continued use of unfair terms, is attained, whilst maintaining the deterrent effect resulting from the straightforward non-application of those terms. Such a consequence is justified by the nature and significance of the public interest which constitutes the basis of the protection guaranteed to consumers, pursuant to which Directive 93/13 requires Member States to provide for adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms. Therefore, a seller or supplier who has disrupted the contractual balance by imposing an unfair term cannot rely on that balance in order to escape the consequences of the invalidation of that term (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2022, GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio , C‑625/21, EU:C:2022:971, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "29       Accordingly, a seller or supplier which has imposed on a consumer a term declared unfair and, consequently, void by the national court cannot claim the statutory compensation provided for by a supplementary provision of national law which would have been applicable in the absence of that term where the contract is capable of continuing in existence without that term (judgment of 8 December 2022, GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio , C‑625/21, EU:C:2022:971, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "30       As regards the question of which provisions of national law are to be regarded as supplementary in nature, it is apparent from the case-law that these are provisions that apply by default, in the absence of any other arrangement between the parties (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2021, Trapeza Peiraios , C‑243/20, EU:C:2021:1045, paragraphs 30 and 36) and which are meant to reflect the balance that the legislature intended to establish between all the rights and obligations of the parties to certain contracts in cases where the parties have not departed from a standard rule provided for by the national legislature in relation to the contracts concerned, or indeed have expressly opted for a rule introduced by the national legislature to that end to be applicable (judgments of 3 October 2019, Dziubak , C‑260/18, EU:C:2019:819, paragraph 60, and of 27 April 2023, AxFina Hungary , C‑705/21, EU:C:2023:352, paragraph 54).", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "31       In the present case, the referring court questions whether rules of national law concerning the allocation and taxation of costs, such as Article 237(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rules introducing scales that impose a ceiling on those costs, may be classified as supplementary for the purposes of the case-law referred to in the preceding paragraph.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "32       In that regard, while it is ultimately for the referring court, which has sole jurisdiction to assess the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and interpret the national legislation, to determine whether such a provision may be classified as a ‘supplementary provision of national law’, the Court of Justice, which is called on to provide answers of use to that court, may provide guidance based on the documents relating to the case in the main proceedings and on the written observations which have been submitted to it, in order to enable the court in question to give judgment (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 September 2022, Cilevičs and Others , C‑391/20, EU:C:2022:638, paragraphs 72 and 73 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "33       In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that Article 237(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure neither governs the relationship between the parties to a contract nor reflects the balance which the national legislature intended to establish between all the rights and obligations of the parties to certain contracts, but is addressed solely to the national court which must rule on the allocation of costs in the context of judicial proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "34       It is also apparent from the order for reference that, in relation to the taxation of costs, the national courts are to apply ‘scales of costs’ that impose a ceiling on the amount of lawyers’ fees that the unsuccessful party may be ordered to pay; that amount may therefore be lower than that agreed by the successful party with his or her lawyer.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "35       Furthermore, according to that order for reference, Article 242(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to moderate of its own motion the amount of the legal costs stipulated by contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "36       Although the referring court emphasises that contracting parties may derogate from the rule set out in Article 237(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the fact remains, as is apparent, in essence, from the documents before the Court, that, where a clause containing such a derogation is declared unfair and subsequently annulled, the application of that provision would have the consequence of restoring the national court’s jurisdiction to rule on the allocation and taxation of costs, by applying the ceiling on lawyers’ fees provided for in the scales of costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "37       Such an outcome appears to be consistent with the case-law of the Court according to which a contractual term held to be unfair must be regarded, in principle, as never having existed, so that it cannot have any effect on the consumer, and, therefore, the determination by a court that such a term is unfair must, in principle, have the consequence of restoring the consumer to the legal and factual situation that he or she would have been in if that term had not existed (see, to that effect, judgments of 13 March 2025, Banco Santander , C‑230/24, EU:C:2025:177, paragraph 29, and of 30 April 2025, AxFina Hungary (Continued existence of the contract) , C‑630/23, EU:C:2025:302, paragraph 45).", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "38       It therefore appears, subject to the verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, that Article 237(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rules relating to scales of costs are not supplementary provisions of national law for the purposes of the case-law referred to in paragraph 30 of the present judgment, inasmuch as they are not intended to reflect a balance that the national legislature intended to establish between all the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "39       Accordingly, it must be concluded that Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, as interpreted in the case-law referred to in paragraphs 25 to 30 of the present judgment, must be interpreted as not precluding the application, by a national court, of the national rules on the allocation and taxation of costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "40       That said, it should also be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, the award of the costs of judicial proceedings before the national courts falls within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (judgments of 27 November 2025, Gryczara , C‑746/24, EU:C:2025:925, paragraph 46, and of 22 January 2026, Herchoski , C‑902/24, EU:C:2026:42, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "41       As regards the principle of equivalence, it is sufficient to note that there is nothing in the documents before the Court to give rise to any doubt as to whether the national provisions governing the allocation and taxation of costs comply with that principle.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "42       As regards the principle of effectiveness, the Court has repeatedly held that, although that principle does not preclude, in general, a consumer from incurring certain legal costs when he or she brings proceedings for a declaration that a contractual term is unfair, it should also be observed that Directive 93/13 confers on consumers the right to apply to a court to have a contractual term declared unfair and disapplied, a right the effectiveness of which must be preserved. As a result, the rules on the award of costs in such proceedings must not deter a consumer from exercising that right (judgments of 27 November 2025, Gryczara , C‑746/24, EU:C:2025:925, paragraph 48, and of 22 January 2026, Herchoski , C‑902/24, EU:C:2026:42, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "43       In particular, the Court has specified that procedural arrangements which give rise to overly high costs for the consumer could have the effect of deterring that consumer from bringing legal proceedings, having regard to the costs which legal proceedings would entail in relation to the amount of the disputed debt, or the proper defence of his or her rights before the court before which proceedings have been brought by the seller or supplier (judgment of 7 April 2022, Caixabank , C‑385/20, EU:C:2022:278, paragraph 54).", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "44       In the present case, the national rules governing the allocation and taxation of costs, in order to guarantee the right of access to the courts, provide, first, for scales that impose a ceiling on the amount of the costs which may be borne by the unsuccessful party, and, second, for the court to have the power to moderate of its own motion the amount of the legal costs. It thus appears, subject to the verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, that those rules enable a national court to prevent a consumer from being ordered to pay overly high legal costs likely to deter him or her from bringing or defending judicial proceedings, in compliance with the principle of effectiveness.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "45       In so far as the referring court also questions whether the national rules on the allocation and taxation of costs are compatible with the objective of Directive 93/13 of deterring sellers or suppliers from using unfair terms in consumer contracts, it must be held that those rules are not such as to compromise the attainment of that objective, given that, under those rules, the seller or supplier would, according to the order for reference, obtain reimbursement not of all the legal costs incurred by that seller or supplier, contrary to what had been provided for in the contractual clause found to be unfair, but only of part of those costs, within the limit of the ceiling imposed by the ‘scales of costs’ and, where appropriate, after moderation by the court of its own motion of the amount concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "46       In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question raised is that Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contractual clause requiring a consumer to pay all the legal costs relating to proceedings resulting from his or her failure to fulfil one of his or her obligations arising under a lease agreement or imposed by law has been declared unfair and, consequently, void, but the agreement in question is nonetheless capable of continuing in existence without that clause, those provisions do not preclude that consumer, who is unsuccessful in judicial proceedings, from being ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the national procedural law governing the allocation and taxation of costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "47       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_81" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness,", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contractual clause requiring a consumer to pay all the legal costs relating to proceedings resulting from his or her failure to fulfil one of his or her obligations arising under a lease agreement or imposed by law has been declared unfair and, consequently, void, but the agreement in question is nonetheless capable of continuing in existence without that clause, those provisions do not preclude that consumer, who is unsuccessful in judicial proceedings, from being ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the national procedural law governing the allocation and taxation of costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: Dutch.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" } ], "word_count": 4594, "cites": [ "C-459/25", "C-229/19", "C-289/19", "C-233/23", "C-625/21", "C-243/20", "C-260/18", "C-705/21", "C-391/20", "C-230/24", "C-630/23", "C-746/24", "C-902/24", "C-385/20" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "3958f2ce46da730db508593c86086d25a0465059876ca5b57ee9f6d82fd5cec7", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CJ0459", "fetched_at": "2026-10-02T12:14:47.618+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-459-25", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-459-25", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-459-25", "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-459-25", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "3958f2ce46da730db508593c86086d25a0465059876ca5b57ee9f6d82fd5cec7", "recomputed_sha256": "3958f2ce46da730db508593c86086d25a0465059876ca5b57ee9f6d82fd5cec7", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-05T01:57:21.425Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:bdabbda36913cbeac29f28d58dd4ac782c88a97c4c514c6d535903f61685253f", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "expires": "2026-10-06T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-04+legal-2026-10-04+2026-10-04T20:33:33", "content_hash": "sha256:bdabbda36913cbeac29f28d58dd4ac782c88a97c4c514c6d535903f61685253f", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-05T02:57:22.008Z", "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-459-25", "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" }