The partial eradication of a severable clause

In principle, eradication cannot be only partial. The CJEU decided in a judgment of 26 March 2019 that "Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, first, as precluding an accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract that has been found to be unfair from being maintained in part, with the elements which make it unfair removed, where the removal of those elements would be tantamount to revising the content of that clause by altering its substance».[49]Interpreting this case law a contrario, in a judgment of 2 June 2021, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation considered that "It follows that an accelerated repayment clause of which only some of the causes are unfair may be maintained in part, provided that, because of its divisibility, the removal of the elements which make it unfair does not affect its substance".[50]. The CJEU judgment of 26 March 2019 serves as a touchstone for the Court of Cassation to rule on the effect of the partial eradication of an unfair term on the contract. Although it decides a contrario to the CJEU, the High Court reuses the concepts developed by the European decision, and in particular by the Advocate General, to conclude that the divisibility of a clause makes it possible to save it from being eradicated because of the abusive nature of some of its terms.[51]

Indeed, in his particularly rich conclusions, the Advocate General examined with great precision the legal mechanisms involved. He studied the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), which developed the notion of divisibility of the unfair term and that of the "blue pencil test": only the unfair part of the term is set aside, with a simple stroke of the pen, the rest of the stipulation is maintained.[52] The retention of a partially unfair term is therefore only possible if this does not lead to a distortion of the term.

Basically, the solution evokes, at the level of the clause, the rule laid down in Article L.241-1 of the Consumer Code (reflecting, incidentally, Article 6, 1 of the 1993 Directive) which provides that the contract remains enforceable in all its provisions other than those deemed unfair if it can survive without these clauses. The First Civil Chamber in fact admits the possibility of transposing this logic within each clause: the disputed clause thus remains enforceable in all its provisions other than those deemed unfair if it can survive without these provisions, which is only possible if this clause is severable. Ultimately, the divisibility of a clause makes it possible to avoid its total eradication because of the unfairness of some of its terms.

[1] X. LAGARDE, « Qu’est-ce qu’une clause abusive ? Etude pratique », JCP G 2006, I, 110.

[2] Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.

42

[3] CJEU 9 July 2015, Maria Bucura v. SC Bancpost SA, C-348/14 (PT 66), EU:C:2015:447 [4] S. PIEDELIEVRE, Droit de la consommation, Economica, 2020, p. 540

[5] See in this sense CJEU, 16 january 2014, Constructora Principado SA v. José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez, C‑226/12, EU:C:2014:10

[6] CJEU 14 march 2013, Mohamed Aziz v. Caixa d´Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa), C‑415/11, EU:C:2013:164

[7] J. ROCHFELD, « Clauses abusives- Listes réglementaires noire et grise. Décret n° 2009-302 du 18 mars 2009 portant application de l’article L. 132-1 du code de la consommation, RTD civ., 2009. 383.

[8]In this sense, S. PIEDELIEVRE, Droit de la consommation, op.cit., p. 542.

[9]For a reminder of this rule, Cass. 1^re civ., 11 december 2019, n° 18-21164.

[10] G. PAISANT, « A propos des vingt-cinq ans de la Commission des clauses abusives en France », in Droit et Actualité, Etudes offertes à Jacques Béguin, Litec, 2005, p. 605 s., n° 14.

[11]In the words of L. LEVENEUR, « La commission des clauses abusives et le renouvellement des sources du droit des obligations », in Le renouvellement des sources du droit des obligations, Travaux de l’Association Henri Capitant, Paris, LGDJ, tome I, 1997, p. 155.

[12]The list can be consulted on the website of the Unfair Contract Terms Commission.

[13] CE, 16 janvier 2006, n°274721 Gaz. Pal., 15 août 2006 17.

[14] P. JESTAZ, « Rapport de synthèse », Le renouvellement des sources du droit des obligations, LGDJ, tome 1, 1996, p. 187s.

[15] O. KUHNMUNCH, « Le dispositif d’élimination des clauses abusives : les nouvelles donnes », Rev. conc. Consom., 1992, nº 65 25.

[16]Cass. 2re civ., 10 february 1998, n° 96-13.316, Bull. Civ., 1998, I, nº 53.

[17] CCA, recommandation, 17 may 2021, n° 21-01, on consumer credit agreements: BOCCRF, 17 May 2021, available at https://lext.so/srZ6lg; ; G. POISSONNIER, « Clauses abusives dans les contrats de consommation : vers une modification en profondeur des offres proposées ? », Contrats, conc. Consom., juillet 2021. Alerte 26 ; S. BERHEIM-DESVAUX, « 43 clauses abusives relevées dans les contrats de crédit à la consommation », Contrats, Conc. Consom., juillet 2021. Comm. 126 ; J.-D PELLIER, « Regard sur la recommandation de la Commission des clauses abusives nº 21-01 relative aux contrats de crédit à la consommation », JCP E, 2021.

[18] Recommendation, op.cit., 11º, 13º et 15º.

[19] Recommendation op. cit., 16º.

[20] Article 1225 of the Civil Code provides that 'The resolutory clause specifies the undertakings whose non-performance will result in the termination of the contract. Termination shall be subject to an unsuccessful formal notice, if it has not been agreed that termination would result from the sole fact of non-performance. The formal notice shall only be effective if it expressly mentions the termination clause.”

[21] Cass. 1re civ., 14 mai 1991, n°89-20999, Bull. civ., I, nº 153.

[22]J. CARBONNIER, Droit civil, T.4, Les obligations, PUF, 22 éd.,2000, nº 83.

[23] For example, Cass. 1re civ., 26 février 2002, n° 99-13912

43

[24]Cass. 1re Civ. 2 june 2021, n° 19-22.455. The Court of Cassation stated that "after noting that Article 14 of the loan contract contained grounds for forfeiture of the term that could be declared abusive because they were unrelated to the performance of the contract, the Court of Appeal noted that it provided for other grounds linked to the performance of the contract itself that were valid» (pt.7)

[25]CJEU 27 june 2000, Océano Grupo Editorial SA v. Roció Murciano Quintero, C-240/98, EU:C:2000:346 [26]CJEU 21 november 2002, Cofidis SA v. Jean-Louis Fredout, C-473/00, EU:C:2002:705

[27] Paragraph added by the law of 17 March 2013.

[28] Article R. 632-1 of the Consumer Code states that "the judge may raise ex officio all the provisions of this Code in disputes arising from its application".

[29]CJEU 11 march 2020, Györgyné Lintner v. UniCredit Bank Hungary Zrt., C‑511/17, EU:C:2020:188 [30] For example, Cass. 1re civ., 20 mars 2013, n°12-14.432

[31] Cass. 1re civ, 16 june 2021, nº 20-12.154.

[32] CJEU, 26 january 2017, Banco Primus SA c/ Jesús Gutiérrez García, C-421/14, EU:C:2017:60 [33] V. KULLMANN, « Remarques sur les clauses réputées non écrites », D. 1993, Chron. 59.

[34] See on this subject J.-D. PELLIER, Droit de la consommation, 3rd ed., 2021, Dalloz, Cours series, no. 113.

[35] Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993

[36] See in particular S. GAUDEMET, La clause réputée non écrite, Economica, 2006.

[37]Article L. 241-1 of the Consumer Code states that "Unfair terms shall be deemed not to be written.

The contract shall remain in force in all its provisions other than those deemed unfair if it can survive without such terms”.

[38] V. COTTEREAU, « La clause réputée non écrite », JCP G 1993, I, 3961.

[39] J. BRUTTIN, « La présence d’une clause abusive et le maintien du contrat de crédit », RDI 2021, p. 540

[40] Cass. 1re Civ., 13 mars 2019, nº 17-23. 169.

[41]The Court of Cassation decided that "the Court of Appeal rightly held that the request to have the disputed clauses deemed unwritten was not a request for nullity, so that it was not subject to the five-year limitation period ».

[42] CJEU, 14 june 2012, Banco Español de Crédito, SA v. Joaquín Calderón Camino, C-618/10, EU:C:2012:349

[43] CJEU, 30 april 2014, Arpad Kasler et Hajnalka Kaslerne Rabai v. OTP Jelzalogbank Zrt, C-26/13, EU:C:2014:282

[44]CJEU, 3 october 2019, Kamil Dziubaket Justyna. Dziubak v. Raiffeisen Bank International AG, C-260/18

[45] S. GAUDEMET, La clause réputée non écrite, Economica 2006, cited by H. PERINET-MARQUET, « Les clauses réputées non écrites en droit de la copropriété », JCP NI 2021. 1124, nº 5.

[46] Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, art.6-1 ; C. consom., art. 241-1.

44

[47] CJEU, 14 march 2019, Zsuzsanna Dunai v. ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt, C-118/17, EU:C:2019:207 [48] V. en ce sens : G. RAYMOND, « Clauses abusives », J.-Cl. Concurrence-Consommation, fasc.

820, 2012, nº 109.

[49] CJUE, 26 march 2019, Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v. Alberto García Salamanca Santos and Bankia SA v. Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez, C-70/17/C-179/17, EU:C:2019:250

[50] Cass. 1re civ., 2 june 2021, nº 19-22.455 (pt.6). The Court conclude “that from these findings and statements, which highlight the divisibility of the grounds for forfeiture of the term provided for in Article 14, the Court of Appeal correctly deduced that the unwritten nature of some of these grounds for forfeiture did not preclude the implementation of those that were validly stipulated, since the deletion of the elements that rendered the disputed clause unfair did not affect its substance” (pt. 8).

[51] Civ. 1^re, 2 juin 2021, nº 19-22.455. In this case, following a notarised deed dated 21 March 2008, a bank granted a couple of borrowers a real estate loan, the general conditions of which provided in Article 14 that the sums due would be automatically and immediately payable in a certain number of cases and in particular in the event of a delay of more than thirty days in the payment of a principal, interest and accessory instalment of the loan and that, in order to avail itself of this, the lender would notify the borrower by simple letter. Subsequently, the borrowers brought an action against the bank for the cancellation of the payment orders for the purpose of seizure and sale that the bank had issued to them, claiming that this clause was abusive on the grounds that it provided for some twenty causes of forfeiture of the term, some of which related to causes outside the contract, it being observed, moreover, that no prior notice of default was provided for. The Douai Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 16 May 2019, rejected this request, which led to an appeal to the Supreme Court by the borrowers, but in vain.

J.D PELLIER, « La divisibilité d’une clause permet d’éviter son éradication totale », D. actu. 11 juin 2021.

[52] Concl., $ 88 Since the 1980s, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) has developed nuanced case-law with regard to the interpretation of terms which are unfair in part. The legal basis for that interpretation is Paragraph 306 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code). That provision, which predates Directive 93/13, is today regarded as transposing Article 6 of that directive.

The issue raised by that court in its case-law is the following: is it possible to divide a term which is

‘tainted’ by an unfair element into a part which is unfair and a part which is fair? If so, what are the consequences of that division?

45