The use of the free credit sanction is also raised in the Bank’s debt enforcement proceedings. As at 31 December 2025, the plea
was raised in 64 such cases.
Legal issues concerning the free credit sanction are the subject of numerous preliminary questions referred by Polish courts to the
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning:
● the admissibility of interest on non-interest credit costs and the information obligations incumbent on financial institutions in
this regard (C-566/24, C-744/24 and C-473/25),
● the interpretation of the one-year time limit for declaring use of the free credit sanction (C-566/24),
● the scope of the consumer’s information on the early repayment procedure (C-566/24, C-831/24) and the consumer’s right of
withdrawal (C-566/24),
● examination by the court of its own motion of the creditor’s infringement of provisions other than those specified in the
declaration of use of the free credit sanction (C-831/24),
● the application of the free credit sanction in the light of the principle of proportionality (C-566/24, C-831/24, C-684/25),
● the mutual relation of unfair terms of contracts and the free credit sanction (C-429/25, C-684/25) and information obligations
of the Court versus the consumer in this regard (C-684/25),
● the admissibility of the free credit sanction where the financial institution formally performed the information obligation but the
information provided to consumers was erroneous or unclear (C-473/25),
● the admissible method of phrasing the modification clause on fees and commissions reserved in the agreement and the
grounds for the free credit sanction in the case of minor irregularities to this extent which do not affect the consumer’s decision
to enter into the agreement (case C-684/25).
On 24 October 2024, the Court of Justice (EU) passed its judgment in Case C-339/23 (Horizon). The CJEU ruled that the provisions
of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and
repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (“Directive 2008/48”) allow the Member States to introduce various sanctions for failure
to carry out a consumer credit assessment and for breach of the information obligations set out in the Directive. The CJEU did not
analyse the Polish legislation or identify a specific sanction for breaching the obligation to carry out a consumer creditworthiness
assessment, noting that the choice of sanctions is up to the Member State, provided that they are effective, proportionate and
dissuasive. In Article 45 u.k.k., the legislator did not provide for the possibility of applying a free credit sanction for a bank’s breach
of its obligation to examine the consumer’s creditworthiness.
On 13 February 2025, the CJEU passed its judgment in case C-472/23 concerning the impact of an overstated annual percentage
rate of charge (due to terms providing for interest on non-interest costs being declared unfair) on an infringement of the information
obligation by the creditor which may result in the application of the free credit sanction, the rules for phrasing of clauses providing
the terms of adjusting fees and commissions, the proportionality of national legislation providing for a uniform sanction for each
infringement of information obligations. The CJEU ruled that:
1. the fact that a credit agreement refers to an annual percentage rate of charge, which proves to be overstated because certain
terms of that agreement are subsequently found to be unfair, does not constitute, in itself, an infringement of the creditor’s
obligation to provide information which may result in the application of the free credit sanction;
2. the provisions of the loan agreement which provide for a change in the fees paid under the agreement should be worded in a
clear and understandable way so that a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer is in
a position to ascertain whether circumstances justifying an increase in the costs have arisen and their effect on those costs;
3. the principle of proportionality of sanctions does not preclude national legislation which provides for a uniform penalty in the
event of an infringement of the creditor’s information obligation, consisting of depriving the creditor of its right to interest and
charges, irrespective of the individual level of seriousness of such an infringement, where that infringement is capable of
calling into question the possibility for the consumer to assess the extent of his or her liability.
On 9 October 2025, the CJEU passed a judgment in case C-80/24 concerning the admissibility of a claim assignment arising from
a consumer credit contract and the obligation of the court to examine the assignment of its own motion to check whether its terms
are unfair. The CJEU ruled that Directive 2008/48 does not preclude national legislation that allows a consumer to assign a claim
arising from the infringement of a right conferred on him or her to a third party which is not a consumer and that Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to examine of its own motion the unfairness of a term in a
claim assignment agreement concluded where the dispute does not concern that assignment agreement, but the consumer’s claim
against that seller or supplier.
The interpretation of the provisions on the free credit sanction is also the subject of legal issues referred for consideration by the
Supreme Court, concerning: the obligation of the court to examine of its own motion all circumstances which justify the application
of the free credit sanction (including other than those indicated in the content of the declaration submitted by the consumer on the
use of the free credit sanction), the interpretation of the one-year time limit for the submission of the declaration on the use of the
free credit sanction, the mutual relation of unfair terms and the free credit sanction, as well as the admissibility of interest on non-
interest costs and the possibility of applying the free credit sanction on this account (ref. III CZP 3/25 and III CZP 15/25). The
Supreme Court has suspended these cases as long as the cases referred by Polish courts to the CJEU are pending.