EU Law Radar

Monitoring References to the Court of Justice of the European Union

Tag

effectiveness

32 case reports

Case C-848/26, Hoist Italia – the lender that did not check, and the buyer that did not lend

A lender failed to assess a borrower's creditworthiness and then sold the loan to Hoist Italia, a buyer of consumer debt. Italian law lets the borrower claim only against the original lender, for pre-contractual liability and damages. A court in Busto Arsizio asks whether that sanction is effective enough under the Consumer Credit Directive when the debt is being collected by someone else.

Case C-752/26, Anori – served by email, whether or not it was read

Greece notifies asylum refusals by ordinary email and treats them as served 48 hours after sending, with the appeal deadline running from that moment. There is no record of when the email was received or opened. A Thessaloniki court asks whether that presumption is compatible with the right to an effective remedy — and what happens when the email went to spam.

Case C-714/26, Consumer Rights Recovery – interest on the fees, and what follows

In April the Court held that a lender may not charge interest on the fees it has financed. A Warsaw court now asks what that means in practice: which of the Consumer Credit Directive's information duties such a contract breaches, whether the national sanction must follow, and whether a court must raise the point of its own motion.

Case C-769/26, Banca Sistema – a shield the consumer wants to use as a sword

When a consumer loan has been sold on, Italian courts let the borrower sue only whoever actually received the money — which means first working out how the two banks arranged the transfer between themselves. A justice of the peace asks whether Article 17 of the Consumer Credit Directive lets the consumer choose to sue either.

Case C-580/26, Vivesevi – the clock on a loan that was never valid

A consumer credit agreement is declared wholly invalid, but the money was drawn down and the lender wants it back. From which date does limitation run on that claim — the finding of invalidity, the drawdown, or each instalment of the contract that no longer exists? Sofia City Court asks.

Case C-571/26, Kahmus – res judicata over a question nobody asked

In Estonian consumer insolvency a credit claim already covered by a final judgment counts as uncontested — even where the reasons do not show that any court ever asked whether the lender assessed the borrower's ability to repay. The Riigikohus asks whether finality can carry a question that was never put.

Case C-572/26, Kangi – fifteen days to object to something nobody told you

An Estonian order for payment issues on a consumer credit claim without any court checking whether the lender ever assessed the borrower's ability to repay — and enforcement checks nothing either. The consumer has fifteen days to object, on papers that never mention the point. The Riigikohus asks whether that is enough.

Case C-449/26, Freie Hansestadt Bremen – must the risk be assessed twice?

One authority withdraws international protection and finds no risk of ill-treatment. A second authority then orders removal. Must it examine that risk again from the beginning — and what happens to evidence the person could have produced earlier but did not? The Bremen administrative court asks.