{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-24","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:210f09","proof":"sha256:4576f83f2f44d50da1df422d6ba0151e3355efa9ba312f31a22966671f065b6b","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665","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"},"sections":[{"title":"62023CJ0665","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1 August 2025 (\n *1\n )","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6"]},{"title":"IL","paragraphs":["para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1","paragraphs":["para_28"]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_30"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"European Union law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Recitals 31 to 35 of Directive 2007/64 read as follows:","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36"]},{"title":"(32)","paragraphs":["para_38"]},{"title":"(33)","paragraphs":["para_40"]},{"title":"(34)","paragraphs":["para_42"]},{"title":"(35)","paragraphs":["para_44"]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 4 of that directive included the following definitions:","paragraphs":["para_47","para_48"]},{"title":"(5)","paragraphs":["para_50","para_51"]},{"title":"(7)","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"(10)","paragraphs":["para_56","para_57"]},{"title":"(16)","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60"]},{"title":"(23)","paragraphs":["para_62","para_63"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70"]},{"title":"(b)","paragraphs":["para_72"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_74","para_75","para_76"]},{"title":"(c)","paragraphs":["para_78"]},{"title":"(d)","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":["para_83","para_84"]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87","para_88"]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_90","para_91"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_100"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_102"]},{"title":"French law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_105","para_106","para_107"]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The first paragraph of Article L. 133-18 of that code provides:","paragraphs":["para_110"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article L. 133-19 of that code provides:","paragraphs":["para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118"]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Under Article L. 133-24 of that code:","paragraphs":["para_121","para_122"]},{"title":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_125"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_127"]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_129"]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":["para_131"]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_133"]},{"title":"23","paragraphs":["para_135"]},{"title":"24","paragraphs":["para_137"]},{"title":"25","paragraphs":["para_139"]},{"title":"26","paragraphs":["para_141"]},{"title":"27","paragraphs":["para_143","para_144","para_145"]},{"title":"(2)","paragraphs":["para_147"]},{"title":"(3)","paragraphs":["para_149"]},{"title":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Preliminary observations","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"28","paragraphs":["para_153"]},{"title":"29","paragraphs":["para_155"]},{"title":"30","paragraphs":["para_157"]},{"title":"31","paragraphs":["para_159"]},{"title":"The first question","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"32","paragraphs":["para_162"]},{"title":"33","paragraphs":["para_164"]},{"title":"34","paragraphs":["para_166"]},{"title":"35","paragraphs":["para_168"]},{"title":"36","paragraphs":["para_170"]},{"title":"37","paragraphs":["para_172"]},{"title":"38","paragraphs":["para_174"]},{"title":"39","paragraphs":["para_176"]},{"title":"40","paragraphs":["para_178"]},{"title":"41","paragraphs":["para_180"]},{"title":"42","paragraphs":["para_182"]},{"title":"43","paragraphs":["para_184"]},{"title":"44","paragraphs":["para_186"]},{"title":"45","paragraphs":["para_188"]},{"title":"46","paragraphs":["para_190"]},{"title":"47","paragraphs":["para_192"]},{"title":"48","paragraphs":["para_194"]},{"title":"49","paragraphs":["para_196"]},{"title":"50","paragraphs":["para_198"]},{"title":"51","paragraphs":["para_200"]},{"title":"52","paragraphs":["para_202"]},{"title":"53","paragraphs":["para_204"]},{"title":"54","paragraphs":["para_206"]},{"title":"55","paragraphs":["para_208"]},{"title":"56","paragraphs":["para_210"]},{"title":"The second question","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"57","paragraphs":["para_213"]},{"title":"58","paragraphs":["para_215"]},{"title":"59","paragraphs":["para_217"]},{"title":"60","paragraphs":["para_219"]},{"title":"61","paragraphs":["para_221"]},{"title":"62","paragraphs":["para_223"]},{"title":"63","paragraphs":["para_225"]},{"title":"64","paragraphs":["para_227"]},{"title":"65","paragraphs":["para_229"]},{"title":"66","paragraphs":["para_231"]},{"title":"67","paragraphs":["para_233"]},{"title":"68","paragraphs":["para_235"]},{"title":"69","paragraphs":["para_237"]},{"title":"70","paragraphs":["para_239"]},{"title":"71","paragraphs":["para_241"]},{"title":"72","paragraphs":["para_243"]},{"title":"73","paragraphs":["para_245"]},{"title":"74","paragraphs":["para_247"]},{"title":"75","paragraphs":["para_249"]},{"title":"76","paragraphs":["para_251"]},{"title":"The third question","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"77","paragraphs":["para_254"]},{"title":"78","paragraphs":["para_256"]},{"title":"79","paragraphs":["para_258"]},{"title":"80","paragraphs":["para_260"]},{"title":"81","paragraphs":["para_262"]},{"title":"82","paragraphs":["para_264"]},{"title":"83","paragraphs":["para_266"]},{"title":"84","paragraphs":["para_268"]},{"title":"85","paragraphs":["para_270"]},{"title":"86","paragraphs":["para_272"]},{"title":"87","paragraphs":["para_274"]},{"title":"88","paragraphs":["para_276"]},{"title":"89","paragraphs":["para_278"]},{"title":"90","paragraphs":["para_280"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"91","paragraphs":["para_283"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"62023CJ0665","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"1 August 2025 (\n *1\n )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Payment services in the internal market – Directive 2007/64/EC – Article 56(1)(b) – Obligation for the payment service user to notify the payment service provider ‘without undue delay’ of the loss, theft, misappropriation or unauthorised use of his or her paymen …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑665/23,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), made by decision of 8 November 2023, received at the Court on 9 November 2023, in the proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"IL","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Veracash SAS,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"composed of I. Jarukaitis (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen, A. Arabadjiev, M. Condinanzi and R. Frendo, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Advocate General: L. Medina,","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":"–","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Veracash SAS, by R. Froger, lawyer,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"the French Government, by R. Bénard and T. Lechevallier, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"the Czech Government, by J. Očková, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"the European Commission, by C. Auvret and G. Goddin, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 9 January 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"1","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 56, 58, 60 and 61 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC ( OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1 , and corrigendum OJ 2009 L 187, p. 5 ).","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"The request has been made in proceedings between IL, a natural person, and Veracash SAS concerning a refusal to refund withdrawals of money allegedly made without IL’s authorisation, on account of their allegedly delayed notification.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Recitals 31 to 35 of Directive 2007/64 read as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"‘(31)","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"In order to reduce the risks and consequences of unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions the payment service user should inform the payment service provider as soon as possible about any contestations concerning allegedly unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions pr …","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"(32)","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify, without undue delay, his provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrument and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised payment transactions, the user should be liable only for a limited amount, unless the payment service us …","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"(33)","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"In order to assess possible negligence by the payment service user, account should be taken of all the circumstances. The evidence and degree of alleged negligence should be evaluated according to national law. Contractual terms and conditions relating to the provision and use of a payment instrument, the effect of which would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or to reduce the burden of proof on the issuer should be considered null and void.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"(34)","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"However, Member States should be able to establish less stringent rules than mentioned above in order to maintain existing levels of consumer protection and promote trust in the safe usage of electronic payment instruments. … Member States should be allowed to reduce or completely waive the payer’s liability except where the payer has acted fraudulently.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"(35)","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Provisions should be made for the allocation of losses in the case of unauthorised payment transactions. Different provisions may apply to payment service users who are not consumers, since such users are normally in a better position to assess the risk of fraud and take countervailing measures.’","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"Article 4 of that directive included the following definitions:","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"(5)","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"“payment transaction” means an act, initiated by the payer or by the payee, of placing, transferring or withdrawing funds, irrespective of any underlying obligations between the payer and the payee;","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"(7)","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"“payer” means a natural or legal person who holds a payment account and allows a payment order from that payment account, or, where there is no payment account, a natural or legal person who gives a payment order;","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"(10)","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"“payment service user” means a natural or legal person making use of a payment service in the capacity of either payer or payee, or both;","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"(16)","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"“payment order” means any instruction by a payer or payee to his payment service provider requesting the execution of a payment transaction;","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"(23)","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"“payment instrument” means any personalised device(s) and/or set of procedures agreed between the payment service user and the payment service provider and used by the payment service user in order to initiate a payment order;","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"Title IV of that directive, entitled ‘Rights and obligations in relation to the provision and use of payment services’, contained five chapters. Chapter 1 of Title IV, entitled ‘Common provisions’, contained Article 51, which set out the scope of Title IV. Paragraph 1 of Article 51 provided:","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"‘Where the payment service user is not a consumer, the parties may agree that … Articles 59, 61, 62, 63, 66 and 75 shall not apply, in whole or in part. The parties may also agree on a time period different from that laid down in Article 58.’","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Chapter 2 of Title IV was entitled ‘Authorisation of payment transactions’ and included Articles 54 to 63 of that directive. Article 56 of Directive 2007/64, entitled ‘Obligations of the payment service user in relation to payment instruments’, provided in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"‘The payment service user entitled to use a payment instrument shall have the following obligations:","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"(b)","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"to notify the payment service provider, or the entity specified by the latter, without undue delay on becoming aware of loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment instrument or of its unauthorised use.’","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"Under Article 57 of Directive 2007/64, entitled ‘Obligations of the payment service provider in relation to payment instruments’:","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"‘1.   The payment service provider issuing a payment instrument shall have the following obligations:","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"(c)","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"to ensure that appropriate means are available at all times to enable the payment service user to make a notification pursuant to Article 56(1)(b) …; and","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"(d)","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"to prevent all use of the payment instrument once notification pursuant to Article 56(1)(b) has been made.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"2.   The payment service provider shall bear the risk of sending a payment instrument to the payer or of sending any personalised security features of it.’","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"According to Article 58 of that directive, entitled ‘Notification of unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions’:","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"‘The payment service user shall obtain rectification from the payment service provider only if he notifies his payment service provider without undue delay on becoming aware of any unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions giving rise to a claim, … and no later than 13 months after t …","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Article 59 of that directive, entitled ‘Evidence on authentication and execution of payment transactions’, provided:","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"‘1.   Member States shall require that, where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction or claims that the payment transaction was not correctly executed, it is for his payment service provider to prove that the payment transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded, entered in the accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other deficiency.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"2.   Where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction, the use of a payment instrument recorded by the payment service provider shall in itself not necessarily be sufficient to prove either that the payment transaction was authorised by the payer or that the payer acted fraudulently or failed with intent or gross negligence to fulfil one or more of his obligations under Article 56.’","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Article 60 of Directive 2007/64, entitled ‘Payment service provider’s liability for unauthorised payment transactions’, provided, in paragraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"‘Member States shall ensure that, without prejudice to Article 58, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payer’s payment service provider refunds to the payer immediately the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction and, where applicable, restores the debited payment account to the state in which it would have been had the unauthorised payment transaction not taken place.’","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Article 61 of Directive 2007/64, entitled ‘Payer’s liability for unauthorised payment transactions’, was worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"‘1.   By way of derogation from Article 60 the payer shall bear the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment instrument or, if the payer has failed to keep the personalised security features safe, from the misappropriation of a payment instrument.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"2.   The payer shall bear all the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions if he incurred them by acting fraudulently or by failing to fulfil one or more of his obligations under Article 56 with intent or gross negligence. In such cases, the maximum amount referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"3.   In cases where the payer has neither acted fraudulently nor with intent failed to fulfil his obligations under Article 56, Member States may reduce the liability referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, taking into account, in particular, the nature of the personalised security features of the payment instrument and the circumstances under which it was lost, stolen or misappropriated.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"4.   The payer shall not bear any financial consequences resulting from use of the lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument after notification in accordance with Article 56(1)(b), except where he has acted fraudulently.","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"5.   If the payment service provider does not provide appropriate means for the notification at all times of a lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument, as required under Article 57(1)(c), the payer shall not be liable for the financial consequences resulting from use of that payment instrument, except where he has acted fraudulently.’","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Article 62 of that directive contained rules relating to ‘refunds for payment transactions initiated by or through a payee’, while Article 63 thereof concerned ‘requests for refunds for [such] transactions’.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Directive 2007/64 was repealed and replaced, with effect from 13 January 2018, by Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC ( OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35 ), in accordance with Article 114 of Directive 2015/2366.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"French law","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"Article L. 133-17 of the Code monétaire et financier (Monetary and Financial Code), in the version resulting from Order No 2009-866 of 15 July 2009 on the conditions governing the supply of payment services and creating payment institutions (JORF of 16 July 2009, text No 13, and corrigendum JORF of 25 July 2009, text No 18) (‘the Monetary and Financial Code’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"‘I – Upon becoming aware of the loss, theft, misappropriation or unauthorised use of the payment instrument or of the data associated with it, the payment service user shall, without undue delay and for the purposes of blocking the instrument, notify his or her payment service provider, or the entity specified by his or her provider.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"The first paragraph of Article L. 133-18 of that code provides:","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"‘In the case of an unauthorised payment transaction notified by the user under the conditions prescribed in Article L. 133-24, the payment service provider shall refund to the payment service user forthwith the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction and, where applicable, shall restore the payment account that had been debited with that amount to the situation that would have existed if the unauthorised payment transaction had not taken place.’","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"Article L. 133-19 of that code provides:","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"‘I. – In the case of an unauthorised payment transaction resulting from the loss or theft of a payment instrument, the payer shall, prior to the notification stipulated in Article L. 133-17, bear the losses associated with the use of the lost or stolen instrument subject to a ceiling of [EUR] 150.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"The payer shall not be held liable, however, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction carried out without the use of the personalised security features.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"II. – The payer shall not be held liable where the unauthorised payment transaction was carried out by misappropriation, without the payer’s knowledge, of the payment instrument or of the data associated with it.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Likewise, he or she shall not incur liability in the event of misuse of the payment instrument if he or she was in physical possession of the instrument when the unauthorised payment transaction took place.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"III. – Except where he or she has acted fraudulently, the payer shall not bear any financial consequences if the payment service provider does not provide appropriate means of notification so that the payment instrument may be blocked, as stipulated in Article L. 133-17.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"IV. – The payer shall bear all the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions if he or she incurred them by acting fraudulently or by failing to fulfil, with intent or gross negligence, one or more of the obligations imposed by Articles … and L. 133-17.’","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"Under Article L. 133-24 of that code:","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"‘The payment service user shall notify the payment service provider without undue delay of any unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions and no later than 13 months after the debit date, failing which he or she will be time barred, unless the payment service provider has failed to provide or make available the information on that payment transaction …","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Except where the user is a natural person acting otherwise than for business or professional purposes, the parties may decide to derogate from this article.’","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"IL holds a gold deposit account with Veracash. On 24 March 2017, Veracash sent to IL’s address a new cash withdrawal and payment card. In the period between 30 March 2017 and 17 May 2017, daily withdrawals were made from that account (‘the withdrawals at issue in the main proceedings’).","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Maintaining that he had neither received that payment card nor authorised those withdrawals, IL brought an action before the Tribunal de grande instance d’Évry (Regional Court, Évry, France), which, since 1 January 2020, became the tribunal judiciaire d’Évry (Court of Évry, France), seeking an order requiring Veracash to refund the sums corresponding to those withdrawals and to pay damages.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Since his action was dismissed in part at first instance, IL brought an appeal before the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France), which dismissed it by judgment of 3 January 2022. That court, like the court of first instance, held that IL could not rely on the provisions of Article L …","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"Accordingly, IL brought an appeal on a point of law before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), which is the referring court. In support of his appeal, IL relies on two grounds of appeal, one of which, in the first part, alleges infringement of Article L. 133-24 of the Monetary and Fi …","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"Veracash contends, on the other hand, that Article L. 133-24 establishes a double time limit and that the 13-month time limit is a final deadline. Moreover, the scheme of that provision requires the user, as soon as he or she becomes aware of an anomaly, to notify it immediately to his or her payment service provider.","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"The referring court states that the outcome of the dispute brought before it depends on whether the payment service provider can refuse to refund the amount of an unauthorised transaction where the payer, despite having notified that transaction within 13 months after the debit date, delayed in doing so, without that delay however having been intentional or the result of gross negligence on his or her part.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Noting that the relevant provisions of the Monetary and Financial Code must be interpreted in accordance with Directive 2007/64, applicable ratione temporis to the dispute before it, in view of the date of the facts giving rise to that dispute, the referring court is of the view that a literal readi …","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"The referring court observes, moreover, that, although the Court, in the judgment of 2 September 2021, CRCAM ( C‑337/20 , EU:C:2021:671 ), interpreted Article 58 of Directive 2007/64, it did not rule on the consequences of the payer’s failure to comply with the obligation to notify his or her payment service provider without undue delay that he or she has become aware of an unauthorised payment transaction.","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"In that regard, it is true that there is an interest in encouraging the payer to be diligent in notifying his or her payment service provider. However, Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64 indicates, according to the referring court, that the EU legislature did not intend to penalise all delays, whate …","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"‘(1)","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"Must Articles 56, 58, 60 and 61 of [Directive 2007/64] be interpreted as meaning that the payer is deprived of the right to reimbursement of the amount of an unauthorised transaction if he [or she] delayed in notifying his [or her] payment service provider of the unauthorised payment transaction, even though he [or she] did so within 13 months from the debit date?","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"(2)","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"In the event that the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the deprivation of the payer’s right to reimbursement conditional on the fact that the lateness of the notification is intentional or the result of gross negligence on the part of the payer?","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"(3)","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"In the event that the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the payer deprived of the right to reimbursement of all the unauthorised transactions or only those which could have been prevented if the notification had not been late?’","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"Preliminary observations","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the withdrawals at issue in the main proceedings were made by means of a card which the applicant in the main proceedings claims he never received.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"29","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"In that context, it must be borne in mind, first, that, in accordance with the definition in Article 4(5) of Directive 2007/64, the withdrawal of funds constitutes a ‘payment transaction’ within the meaning of that provision. In addition, under Article 4(23), the concept of ‘payment instrument’ refe …","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"30","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"The dispute in the main proceedings therefore concerns a series of allegedly unauthorised payment transactions resulting from the use of a payment instrument. However, in the absence of any indication in that regard in the order for reference, it is not possible to determine whether that payment ins …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"31","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Second, Article 57(2) of Directive 2007/64 provides that the payment service provider shall bear the risk of sending a payment instrument to the payer or of sending any personalised security features of it. In the light of the facts giving rise to the main proceedings, it is therefore for the referr …","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"The first question","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"32","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"It is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that, by its first question, the referring court seeks clarification on the scope of the payment service user’s obligation to notify unauthorised payment transactions. That notification obligation is specifically laid down in Article 58 of Directive 2007/64.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"33","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"Accordingly, the referring court’s first question should be understood as asking, in essence, whether Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that the payment service user is deprived of the right to obtain rectification of a transaction if he or she failed to notify his or he …","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"34","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"According to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82 , EU:C:1983:335 , paragraph  12 , and of 6 March 2025, Cymdek, C‑20/24 , EU:C:2025:139 , paragraph  38 ).","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"35","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"As regards, in the first place, the wording of the provision whose interpretation is sought, it should be recalled that Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 provides that the payment service user shall obtain rectification only if he or she notifies his or her payment service provider without undue delay …","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"36","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"It is thus on the premiss that the payment service provider has fulfilled his or her obligations to provide information under Title III of Directive 2007/64 that it is necessary to proceed with the interpretation of Article 58 of that directive.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"37","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"In that regard, it should be noted that the wording of that provision lays down the obligation for the payment service user to notify his or her payment service provider ‘without undue delay’ on becoming aware, inter alia, of an unauthorised payment transaction, ‘and no later’ than 13 months after t …","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"38","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Admittedly, not all the language versions of Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 use the conjunction ‘and’. However, all those language versions state that the obligation for the payment service user to notify an unauthorised payment transaction to his or her payment service provider ‘without undue dela …","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"39","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Furthermore, as the Advocate General also observed, in essence, in points 44, 47 and 48 of her Opinion, the obligation to notify ‘without undue delay’ is subjective in nature, in that it requires the payment service user to act as soon as possible, having regard to the circumstances in which he or s …","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"40","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"The wording of Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 therefore indicates that, in principle, in order to obtain rectification of a transaction, the payment service user is required both to notify his or her payment service provider without undue delay on becoming aware of an unauthorised payment transaction and to make that notification no later than 13 months after the debit date.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"41","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"That literal interpretation is, in the second place, supported by the context in which Article 58 occurs. In that regard, first, recital 31 of Directive 2007/64 refers to the need for the payment service user to notify the payment service provider ‘as soon as possible’ of any contestations concernin …","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"42","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"Second, according to Article 56(1)(b) of Directive 2007/64, the payment service user entitled to use a payment instrument is under an obligation, on becoming aware of the loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment instrument or of its unauthorised use, to notify it to the payment service provider or the entity specified by that provider without undue delay.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"43","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Admittedly, the time limit within which that notification obligation must be fulfilled differs from the obligation to notify an unauthorised payment transaction ‘without undue delay’ laid down in Article 58 of that directive. That time limit runs from the date on which the payment service user becom …","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"44","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"However, the fact remains that, as the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings illustrate, it is possible that the notification obligation laid down in Article 56(1)(b) of that directive and the notification obligation laid down in Article 58 thereof may arise simultaneously. In such circu …","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"45","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"That literal interpretation is, in the third place, supported by the objectives pursued by Directive 2007/64.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"46","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"In that regard, first, according to recital 31 of that directive, which clarifies the scope of Article 58 thereof, the obligation for the payment service user to notify the payment service provider ‘as soon as possible’ of any contestations concerning allegedly unauthorised payment transactions is intended to reduce the risks and consequences of unauthorised payment transactions.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"47","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"It is thus apparent from recital 31 that the obligation to notify ‘without undue delay’ laid down in Article 58 pursues a preventive objective. If compliance with the 13-month time limit after the debit date were sufficient in any event to consider that the payment service user had fulfilled his or her obligation to notify under Article 58, that preventive purpose would be undermined.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"48","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Second, it follows from the case-law of the Court that the 13-month time limit is a maximum time limit, at the expiry of which the payment service user no longer has the possibility of holding the payment service provider liable for the transaction concerned, even on the basis of a liability regime …","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"49","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"The fact that that objective is different from that pursued by the obligation to notify ‘without undue delay’ confirms that Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 contains two temporal conditions, which are in principle separate. Furthermore, to consider that the payment service user is entitled to obtain …","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"50","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"In accordance with Article 60(1) of that directive, Member States are to ensure that, without prejudice to Article 58, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payer’s payment service provider refunds to the payer immediately the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction and, whe …","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"51","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"It follows from the foregoing that the notification obligation laid down in Article 58 of that directive is deemed to be satisfied only upon the fulfilment of the twofold condition, first, that the payment service user notifies his or her payment service provider without undue delay on becoming aware of an unauthorised payment transaction and, second, that that notification takes place no later than 13 months after the debit date.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"52","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"That said, it must also be borne in mind that, in the logic of the liability regime established in Chapter 2 of Title IV of Directive 2007/64, the obligation on the payment service user to notify any unauthorised transaction is the condition for that regime to be able to apply for the benefit of that user (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 September 2021, CRCAM, C‑337/20 , EU:C:2021:671 , paragraphs  38 and  39 ).","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"53","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Thus, as stated in recital 31 of that directive with reference to the notification, inter alia, of ‘allegedly’ unauthorised payment transactions, that notification obligation is a prerequisite intended to ensure that the payment service provider is informed of the fact that the payment service user …","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"54","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"In particular, the actual obtaining of that rectification is, first, subject to the condition that that lack of authorisation is established, since Article 59 of Directive 2007/64 contains, in that regard, certain details relating to proof of authentication and execution of payment transactions. Sec …","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"55","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"Furthermore, according to Article 51(1) of Directive 2007/64, where the payment service user is not a consumer, the parties may, first, decide that, inter alia, Articles 59, 61, 62 and 63 thereof do not apply, in whole or in part, and, second, agree on a time limit different from that laid down in Article 58 of that directive.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"56","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the answer to the first question is that Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that the payment service user is, in principle, deprived of the right to obtain rectification of a transaction if he or she …","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"The second question","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"57","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, under 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 referring court with an answer which will be of use to it …","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"58","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that, by its second question, the referring court seeks to obtain clarification on possible circumstances in which it may be considered that a delay in notifying an unauthorised payment transaction is in fact such as to de …","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"59","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Not only Article 58 of Directive 2007/64, relating in particular to the notification of unauthorised payment transactions, but also Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of that directive, relating to the respective liabilities of the payment service provider and the payer in the event of an unauthorised …","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"60","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"In those circumstances, and in the light of the answer to the first question, it must be understood that, by its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof, must be …","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"61","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"In that respect, as regards, in the first place, the wording of those provisions, it should be recalled that it follows from the reference in Article 60(1) of Directive 2007/64 to Article 58 thereof, and from recital 31 of that directive, that the application of the liability regime in the case of u …","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"62","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"In the context of that liability regime for unauthorised payment transactions, Article 59 of Directive 2007/64 establishes a mechanism for the burden of proof which is favourable to the payment service user. In essence, the burden of proof lies with the payment service provider, who must prove that …","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"63","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"That obligation to refund immediately the amount of the transaction concerned is, however, subject to certain qualifications, set out in Article 61 of Directive 2007/64. In particular, Article 61(2) of that directive provides, in its first sentence, that the payer is to bear all the losses relating …","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"64","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"As has already been noted in paragraph 42 above, the payer’s obligations under Article 56 include, in paragraph 1(b) of that article, the obligation, for that payer, to notify without undue delay his or her payment service provider or the entity specified by that provider when he or she becomes aware of the loss, theft, misappropriation or unauthorised use of his or her payment instrument.","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"65","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Therefore, it follows from the wording of the first sentence of Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) and Article 60(1) of that directive, that the payer is required to bear the losses relating to unauthorised payment transactions resulting from the use of his …","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"66","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"That interpretation is, in the second place, supported by the context in which Article 56(1)(b), Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64 occur.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"67","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"First, as has already been stated in paragraph 44 above, it may happen that the notification obligation laid down in Article 56(1)(b) of Directive 2007/64 and the notification obligation laid down in Article 58 thereof arise simultaneously. Therefore, as the Advocate General also observed in point 6 …","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"68","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"Second, in accordance with Article 57(1)(d) of Directive 2007/64, the payment service provider issuing a payment instrument is required to prevent any use of that instrument following a notification made pursuant to Article 56(1)(b) of that directive. In addition, Article 61(4) of that directive pro …","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"69","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"In the third place, from a teleological perspective, it should be noted, first, that the interpretation set out in paragraph 65 above is such as to preserve the effectiveness of the first sentence of Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64. To that end, the payment service provider should not be able to …","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"70","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"Second, that interpretation is supported by the objective pursued by Directive 2007/64, as expressed in recital 32 thereof, according to which, in order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify, without undue delay, his or her provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrume …","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"71","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"Consequently, it follows from Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, taken together and read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof, that, in the event of an unauthorised payment transaction which, first, results from the use of a lost, stolen or misappropriated paym …","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"72","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"It is for the referring court, which alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts, to determine whether that is the case for each of the withdrawals at issue in the main proceedings, since Article 58 expressly refers to the notification of individual payment transactions.","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"73","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"In the latter regard, in the light of the information set out by the referring court, summarised in paragraphs 22 to 26 above, it should be added that, first, according to Article 59(2) of Directive 2007/64, where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction, the u …","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"74","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"However, the conditions set out in Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64 include ‘gross negligence’ on the part of the payer, namely, as the Advocate General also observed in point 65 of her Opinion, a serious breach of a duty of care. Furthermore, as stated in paragraph 39 above, account must be taken …","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"75","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Furthermore, Article 61 of Directive 2007/64 contains details as to the extent of the losses which, where appropriate, must actually be borne by the payer, in particular in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 71 above.","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"76","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an unauthorised payment transaction re …","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"The third question","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"77","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"The referring court asks its third question in the event that the answer to the first question is that the payer is deprived of the right to obtain rectification of a transaction where he or she delayed in notifying his or her payment service provider on becoming aware of an unauthorised payment transaction, even if he or she notified it within 13 months after the debit date.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"78","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"Although that first question has, in essence, been answered in the affirmative, that answer is nevertheless, as is apparent from paragraphs 52 to 55 above, subject to various conditions and, in particular, as is apparent from the analysis of the second question, the fact that, where an unauthorised …","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"79","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Furthermore, it is for the referring court to assess and classify the facts at issue before it in the light, inter alia, of the clarifications set out in paragraphs 73 and 74 above.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"80","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"It is therefore necessary to reformulate the third question in order to take account of the answer given to the first and second questions.","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"81","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"Thus, it must be held that, by its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of successive unauthorised payment t …","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"82","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"In that regard, as regards the wording of those provisions, it should be noted that, according to Article 60(1) of Directive 2007/64, liability for losses incurred as a result of unauthorised payment transactions lies, in principle, with the payment service provider. However, according to Article 61 …","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"83","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"The wording of Article 61(2) therefore establishes a causal link between, first, the payer’s conduct and, second, the losses incurred in respect of which he or she cannot obtain rectification.","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"84","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"In addition, it is apparent from the answer to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling that the question whether a notification made under Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 in circumstances such as those referred to in Article 61(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof, must be regarded as actually delayed is to be assessed separately for each transaction.","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"85","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"Accordingly, even in the case of unauthorised payment transactions carried out repeatedly over time, all of which result from the same loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment instrument in question, the payer may be deprived of the right to obtain rectification only in respect of transactions which he or she delayed in notifying to his or her payment service provider with intent or gross negligence.","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"86","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"That literal interpretation is supported not only by the fact that Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64 is a provision derogating from the principle laid down in Article 60(1) of that directive and that it must therefore be interpreted strictly, but also by the context in which the provisions referred to in paragraph 81 above occur.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"87","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"In addition, Article 61(4) of that directive provides that, except where the payer has acted fraudulently, the payer is not to bear any financial consequences resulting from the use of a lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument which occurred after the notification provided for in Article …","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"88","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"That literal interpretation is also supported by the objectives pursued by Directive 2007/64. In that regard, it should be noted that the requirement of a causal link between the payer’s conduct and the losses which he or she has incurred and for which he or she cannot obtain a refund from his or he …","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"89","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"Moreover, that requirement guarantees the effectiveness of both Article 51(1) and Article 61(3) of Directive 2007/64. First, it permits the parties, when the payment service user is not a consumer, to decide, inter alia, that Article 61 of that directive is not to apply or to agree on a time limit d …","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"90","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of successive unauthorised payment transac …","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"91","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"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_283"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"1.","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"Article 58 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that the payment service user is, in principle, deprived of the right to obtain rectification of a transaction if he or she did not notify his or her payment service provider without undue delay on becoming aware of an unauthorised payment transaction, even though he or she notified it to that payment service provider within 13 months after the debit date.","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"2.","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof,","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an unauthorised payment transaction resulting from the use of a lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument, or from any unauthorised use of such an instrument, and where that transaction has been notified by the payer to his or her payment …","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"3.","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"Article 58, Article 60(1) and Article 61(2) of Directive 2007/64, read in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) thereof,","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of successive unauthorised payment transactions, resulting from the use of a lost, stolen or misappropriated payment instrument or any unauthorised use of such an instrument, and where the payer, while observing the 13‑month time limit after the debi …","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"(\n *1\n ) Language of the case: French.","paragraph_id":"para_295"}],"word_count":10190,"cites":["C-337/20","C-20/24","C-280/91","C-88/99","C-697/23"],"sha256":"e1eb29f11d6691d85a2fe764c8cb8fa940e77de75fa84e28d51a6e41dc86ae08","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62023CJ0665.ENG.xhtml.ECR_62023CJ0665_EN_01.html","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T19:23:53.208+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-665-23-62023cj0665","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665","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-665-23-62023cj0665"},"hash":"sha256:4576f83f2f44d50da1df422d6ba0151e3355efa9ba312f31a22966671f065b6b","version":"legal-2026-10-24","expires":"2026-10-26T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-24+legal-2026-10-24+2026-10-24T20:07:20","content_hash":"sha256:4576f83f2f44d50da1df422d6ba0151e3355efa9ba312f31a22966671f065b6b","revalidate_after":"2026-10-25T01:15:12.734Z","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-665-23-62023cj0665","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-665-23-62023cj0665"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"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","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"withheld":{"item.cited_by":1},"access":{"status":"partner_key_required","header":"x-partner-key","contact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/kontakt","note":"Facts and counts are public. Relationships and decision paths stay inside NovaCopilot."},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-665-23-62023cj0665","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-cbf408e7cd089a9a2e2114ffb20fa419","response_hash":"sha256:4576f83f2f44d50da1df422d6ba0151e3355efa9ba312f31a22966671f065b6b"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T03:20:17.101Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-665-23-62023cj0665","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":19948}}