# CJEU on the Commencement of Limitation Periods for Bank Restitution Claims

> The CJEU clarifies when limitation periods begin for bank claims to repayment of loan principal in void consumer credit agreements.

Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/cjeu-limitation-periods-bank-restitution-claims/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-10-24

---

## CJEU clarifies commencement of limitation periods for banks’ restitution claims

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has commented in the [joined cases C‑261/25 and C‑262/25](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/./legal-content/AUTO/?uri=CELEX:62025CJ0261_SUM) on the consequences of unfair terms in consumer credit agreements. The central issue was the point in time from which the limitation period for a bank’s claim for repayment of the loan principal disbursed begins where an agreement is void due to unfair terms.

[The CJEU held](https://curia.europa.eu/site/jcms/d2_5476/en/judgments-and-opinions) on 2 July 2026 that Art. 6(1) and Art. 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (Unfair Terms Directive), interpreted in the light of Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of effectiveness, equivalence, proportionality and legal certainty, do not preclude a national interpretation under which the limitation period begins with the consumer’s first objection raised with the bank. Accordingly, the decisive point is the time at which the consumer first challenges, vis-à-vis the bank, the binding effect of the relevant terms and of the agreement containing those terms.

## Background to the joined proceedings

### Starting point in the Polish credit proceedings

The requests for a preliminary ruling came from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Regional Court in Warsaw). The proceedings concerned disputes between banks and consumers regarding the restitution of benefits under loan agreements that were regarded as void due to unfair terms.

In case C‑261/25, consumers had concluded a mortgage loan agreement linked to the Swiss franc in 2008 with the legal predecessor of Bank BPH S.A., with a term of 360 months. PLN 460,000 was disbursed, which in the main proceedings was also the subject of the bank’s subsequent action for repayment of principal plus interest.

On 27 August 2019, the consumers objected to certain contractual terms vis-à-vis the bank as being unfair. They argued that the wording corresponded to terms entered in the register of prohibited terms maintained by the Polish President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. On 16 September 2019, they brought an action against the bank seeking a declaration that the agreement was void and repayment of the amounts they had paid. According to the information provided by the referring court, that action was successful by judgment of 30 October 2023.

Bank BPH, in turn, brought an action against the consumers on 1 December 2022, seeking repayment of the disbursed loan principal in the amount of PLN 460,000 plus default interest. The consumers argued in response that the bank’s claim was time-barred.

### Parallel proceedings against Raiffeisen Bank International

Case C‑262/25 concerned another mortgage loan agreement that had been concluded in 2006 with the legal predecessor of Raiffeisen Bank International AG. This agreement was also linked to the Swiss franc and had a term of 360 months. The consumer received PLN 149,369.29.

The consumer and the bank later each brought actions which, according to the information provided by the referring court, were comparable to the proceedings in C‑261/25. The consumer likewise relied on limitation as a defence against the bank’s action. The Warsaw court stayed the proceedings and referred the same question on the interpretation of EU law to the CJEU.

## National legal framework and significance of limitation

### Restitution on grounds of unjust enrichment

According to the information provided by the referring court, the nullity of an agreement under Polish law means that each contracting party must return to the other the benefits received. The basis for this is, in particular, the provisions on unjust enrichment and undue performance in the Polish Civil Code.

For claims connected with the exercise of an economic activity, a three-year limitation period applies under the national provisions relevant in the main proceedings. The referring court therefore focused on which point in time is decisive for the commencement of that period.

### Three points in time considered by the referring court

The Polish court submitted the question to the CJEU against the background of several conceivable points of reference. In particular, it considered:

- the time at which the loan principal was disbursed to the consumer,
- the time at which comparable terms were entered in the register of prohibited terms,
- the time at which the consumer first objected to the bank to being bound by the relevant contractual terms.

In the view of the referring court, the first point in time could be disadvantageous for banks, because the limitation period might then already expire before the bank had reason to recognise the invalidity of the agreement and its own restitution claim. The second point in time also appeared problematic to the court because entry in the register does not automatically result in the complete nullity of a specific agreement.

## The question referred to the CJEU

The Warsaw court wished to know whether EU law precludes a national interpretation under which the limitation period for the bank’s restitution claim against the consumer runs from the point in time at which the consumer first calls into question being bound by the contractual terms.

The reference expressly concerned Art. 6(1) and Art. 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, Art. 47 of the Charter, the principles of effectiveness, equivalence, proportionality and legal certainty, as well as the right of access to a court.

## Relevance to the decision despite developments in the proceedings

### Continuation of proceedings C‑262/25

In proceedings C‑262/25, the referring court informed the CJEU that Raiffeisen Bank International had withdrawn its action. However, the national court declared the withdrawal inadmissible under the applicable Polish procedural rules. It considered the purpose of the withdrawal to be the elimination of the request for a preliminary ruling pending before the CJEU.

According to the information provided by the referring court, the decision on the inadmissibility of the withdrawal of the action was not subject to appeal and was final. The CJEU therefore assumed that the dispute in the main proceedings had not become devoid of purpose and that a decision had to be given on the request for a preliminary ruling.

### Admissibility of the questions referred

The banks involved raised objections to the admissibility of the questions referred. Bank BPH argued, among other things, that the question was hypothetical because, according to more recent CJEU case-law, repayments made by the consumer were to be set off against the loan principal. Raiffeisen Bank International argued that the consequences of the nullity of an agreement and the commencement of limitation fell within national law.

The CJEU did not accept these objections. It proceeded on the basis that the questions concerned the interpretation of EU law and that, therefore, relevance to the decision was in principle to be presumed. According to the Court’s decision, the objections did not concern admissibility but, at most, the substantive assessment.

## CJEU standards on unfair terms

### Effect of unfair contractual terms

The CJEU confirmed its settled case-law on Directive 93/13/EEC. Accordingly, a term found to be unfair must, in principle, be treated as if it had never existed. It may not have any effect on the consumer.

The judicial finding that a term is unfair is intended, in principle, to restore the consumer to the legal and factual position in which he or she would have been without the unfair term. This may give rise to a consumer’s claim for repayment of the amounts which the seller or supplier received to the consumer’s detriment on the basis of the unfair term.

According to the decision, this approach also applies where not only individual terms are disapplied, but the entire agreement is void due to the unfair terms.

### Mutual restitution and proportionality

At the same time, the Court clarified that restoration of the original position must take place in compliance with the principle of proportionality. Full unwinding may not be structured in such a way that the bank would be excluded from any restitution claim from the outset.

According to CJEU case-law, restitution following the declaration of nullity of a loan agreement containing unfair terms must, in principle, be possible on a reciprocal basis. However, the bank may not demand from the consumer any amount exceeding repayment of the principal disbursed plus statutory default interest from the time of default.

### No unjust enrichment

The CJEU also justified the possibility of restitution by the bank by reference to the prohibition of unjust enrichment. Consumer protection under EU law is not intended to result in the consumer using the rights guaranteed by EU law in a manner that leads to unjust enrichment.

In addition, the Court referred to the principle of equality of arms. If, after the agreement has been declared void, the consumer can demand restitution of his or her payments, the bank must, in principle, for its part be placed in a position to demand repayment of the loan principal disbursed. However, according to the case-law cited, it is not entitled to remuneration for making the capital available.

## Commencement of the limitation period under EU law standards

### National procedural autonomy and its limits

The CJEU clarified that EU law does not contain independent detailed rules on the limitation of the bank’s restitution claim. The arrangements therefore fall, in principle, within the procedural autonomy of the Member States.

That autonomy is, however, limited by:

- the principle of equivalence,
- the principle of effectiveness,
- the principle of proportionality,
- the prohibition of unjust enrichment,
- the principle of equality of arms,
- legal certainty.

With regard to the principle of equivalence, the Court found that nothing in the documents before it raised doubts that the national limitation rules complied with that principle.

### No commencement of the period as early as disbursement of the capital

The CJEU emphasised that the protective mechanism of Directive 93/13/EEC is not enforced against the consumer’s wishes. After being duly informed, the consumer may decide not to rely on the unfairness and non-binding nature of a term. The consumer may therefore freely and knowingly consent to a term and thereby avoid the agreement being declared void.

As long as the consumer has not indicated that he or she wishes to invoke the nullity of the agreement, the bank, according to the decision, does not yet have a corresponding restitution claim. Consequently, the limitation period for that claim cannot begin to run before such a declaration by the consumer.

### No commencement of the period by entry in the register

The CJEU also ruled out linking the commencement of the limitation period to the entry of comparable terms in the register of prohibited terms. According to the decision, such an entry does not cause the specific agreement to become automatically void.

Rather, the nullity of an agreement must be established by a national court. In doing so, the consumer’s position must also be taken into account, in particular whether he or she wishes to rely on the unfairness.

### First objection by the consumer as the decisive point in time

In the CJEU’s view, it is compatible with EU law to set the commencement of the limitation period at the point in time at which the consumer first objects to the bank to being bound by the relevant terms and the agreement.

From that point onwards, the bank is informed of the consumer’s intention to rely on the possible nullity of the agreement. It can therefore foresee the resulting legal and economic consequences. The Court also regarded this as a solution that serves legal certainty.

At the same time, this point of reference reduces the risk that a seller or supplier remains inactive until the consumer’s claim is time-barred without having to fear limitation of its own claim.

## Significance of the decision for CHF credit cases

### Classification within the case-law

The joined cases are referred to in the legal literature under the party names Bank BPH and Raiffeisen Bank International. The CJEU interpreted Art. 6(1) and Art. 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC together with the principles of effectiveness, proportionality and legal certainty.

The decision primarily concerns situations in which consumer credit agreements are declared void due to unfair terms and the subsequent unwinding is disputed. In Poland, this particularly affects credit agreements linked to the Swiss franc.

According to the additionally published assessments, depending on the national assessment, a pre-litigation demand for payment or the consumer’s statement of claim served on the bank may also be considered the first objection vis-à-vis the bank. However, classification by the competent national court in the individual case remains decisive.

### Reactions and national developments

The Polish Bank Association ZBP and its President Tadeusz Białek regarded the decision as confirmation that there is no basis for a mechanism that would amount to free housing finance at the expense of banks. This assessment is a reaction by the association to the decision and must be distinguished from the CJEU’s ratio decidendi.

At the same time, the decision is considered to be in line with the case-law of the Polish Supreme Court. In a decision of 9 July 2026 with case no. I CSK 735/26, the information available indicates that the first objection by the consumer was likewise taken as the relevant point of reference.

## Operative part of the CJEU judgment

The CJEU concluded that Art. 6(1) and Art. 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, interpreted in the light of Art. 47 of the Charter and the principles of effectiveness, equivalence, proportionality and legal certainty, do not preclude a national interpretation under which the limitation period for the seller’s or supplier’s claim against the consumer begins with the first objection.

This covers the claim for restitution of undue performance made under an agreement that is void due to unfair terms. The prerequisite is that the consumer has, for the first time vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, called into question being bound by those terms and the agreement.

The CJEU left the decision on costs in the main proceedings to the national courts. According to the decision, costs incurred for observations before the CJEU that were not borne by the parties to the main proceedings are not recoverable.

## Contract drafting and unwinding remain dependent on the individual case

The decision makes clear that questions of unwinding agreements containing unfair terms engage both EU law requirements and national limitation rules. For companies, credit institutions, investors and private contracting parties, the precise determination of the commencement of limitation periods, the scope of claims and the procedural starting position can be of considerable significance.

MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises clients on the review and enforcement of contractual positions in a national and international context. If you have legal questions concerning contractual terms, unwinding and limitation, you can find further information on [legal advice in contract law](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/handelsrecht/vertragsrecht/).