The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has ruled in Case C‑60/25 on the scope of Commission decisions concerning the Euribor cartel and on the consequences for civil-law loan agreements. The central issue was whether the European Commission’s findings regarding manipulation of Euribor in the area of euro-denominated interest rate derivatives could automatically lead to the invalidity of an interest-rate clause in a real estate loan agreement.
The judgment concerns the interpretation of Art. 101(2) TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Art. 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (EU competition enforcement regulation). The ECJ clarified that a Commission decision finding a cartel prohibited under Art. 101(1) TFEU and the manipulation of a benchmark interest rate on a specific market does not, without more, cover every contractual clause that refers to that interest rate.
Initial proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Cagliari
The proceedings were based on a dispute between a borrower and a lending bank. The subject matter of the dispute was a real estate loan agreement concluded on 15 December 2005. The agreement initially provided for an interest rate of 3.60 percent for the first half-year; thereafter, a variable interest rate was to apply, consisting of a fixed component of 1.50 percent and a variable component linked to the six-month Euribor.
Before the Italian courts, the borrower sought in particular a recalculation of the amounts owed as ordinary loan interest and a declaration that he was entitled to a claim. In support of this, he asserted the invalidity of certain contractual clauses, including the clause determining the interest rate by reference to Euribor.
The court of first instance in Oristano dismissed the applications. It assumed that the agreed interest rate was based on previously determined criteria that were not at the discretion of the bank. In the appeal proceedings before the Corte d’appello di Cagliari (Court of Appeal of Cagliari), reference was then made to the European Commission’s decisions on the Euribor cartel.
Commission decisions on the Euribor cartel
Findings of the European Commission
On 4 December 2013 and 7 December 2016, the European Commission adopted decisions in case AT.39914 – Euro Interest Rate Derivatives. These EIRD decisions concerned the euro-denominated interest rate derivatives sector.
According to the Commission’s findings, the undertakings concerned had, during individual periods between 29 September 2005 and 30 May 2008, committed a single and continuous infringement of Art. 101 TFEU and Art. 53 of the EEA Agreement (Agreement on the European Economic Area). According to the decisions, the infringement extended to the European Economic Area and consisted of agreements and/or concerted practices aimed at distorting the normal course of pricing components in that sector. Those components were, in particular, linked to Euribor.
Prior judicial review
By judgment of 24 September 2019, the General Court of the European Union (EU General Court) annulled part of Decision C(2016) 8530 final insofar as it concerned the fine imposed on certain companies of a British banking group. It dismissed the action as to the remainder, in particular insofar as it concerned the finding of participation in a single and continuous infringement. The Court of Justice confirmed that partial dismissal by judgment of 12 January 2023 in Case C‑883/19 P.
In the later proceedings C‑60/25, however, the issue was not participation in the cartel itself, but the effect of those Commission decisions on a loan agreement that had been concluded on a different market.
Question referred on binding effect and invalidity
In essence, the Court of Appeal of Cagliari wanted to know whether proof of the Euribor manipulation established in the EIRD decisions is binding on national courts and whether the restriction of competition concerns only the market for euro interest rate derivatives or every market on which the manipulated Euribor was used.
The background was differing lines of case law in the Italian Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation). According to one view, the Commission decision had enhanced evidentiary value for actions asserting the invalidity of Euribor interest clauses and the recalculation of interest owed during the manipulation period. This view did not depend on whether the lending bank concerned had itself participated in the cartel.
According to another view, the Commission’s finding was limited to the market for euro-denominated interest rate derivatives. On that basis, variable-rate loan agreements could not be regarded as a consequence of the prohibited cartel and declared invalid solely because they used Euribor as a benchmark.
Italian procedural context
The First Civil Chamber of the Italian Court of Cassation had referred the question to the United Sections, the Sezioni Unite, by interim order No. 19900/2024 of 19 July 2024. By order No. 6943 of 15 March 2025, the latter stayed their decision pending the ECJ’s ruling. Following the Court of Justice’s judgment, further clarification of the Italian legal consequences is again a matter for the national courts, in particular the Sezioni Unite.
In substance, the ECJ judgment is in line with a decision of the Cassazione No. 12007/2024, insofar as that decision also rejected automatic invalidity. At the same time, the assessment of the consequences for individual contracts under the applicable national law remains reserved to the competent national courts.
Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling
The lending bank considered the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible. It argued, among other things, that the question was premature and hypothetical because a difference of opinion in Italian case law was still pending before the United Sections of the Court of Cassation.
The ECJ rejected these objections. It recalled that national courts are entitled to refer questions to the Court of Justice on the interpretation or validity of EU law if they consider an answer necessary to decide the dispute pending before them. The Court also emphasised the presumption that questions concerning EU law are relevant to the decision.
A further objection concerned whether the application for a declaration of invalidity of the loan agreement clause could, under national procedural law, be made for the first time in the appeal proceedings. In this respect as well, the ECJ clarified that, in proceedings under Art. 267 TFEU, it does not review whether the order for reference complies with national rules on court organisation and procedure.
ECJ decision on Art. 101(2) TFEU
Invalidity does not automatically extend to downstream transactions
The ECJ stated that an agreement prohibited under Art. 101(1) TFEU, where no exemption under Art. 101(3) TFEU is available, is void under Art. 101(2) TFEU. That invalidity is absolute and may be relied upon by anyone. It affects the prohibited agreement in both its past and future effects.
However, the Court expressly limited this effect. The invalidity extends only to the contractual provisions of the agreement in question that are incompatible with Art. 101(1) TFEU. It does not automatically cover contracts concluded on the basis of, or using, a parameter influenced by a cartel agreement.
The consequences that a prohibition of certain clauses based on Art. 101 TFEU has for other parts of an agreement or for resulting obligations are determined by national law. The courts of the respective Member State have jurisdiction in this regard.
No invalidity of the loan interest clause solely due to Euribor reference
For the specific case, the ECJ found that the lending bank had not participated in the cartel covered and sanctioned by the EIRD decisions. In addition, the clause at issue in the main proceedings was not among the agreements and concerted practices that the Commission had classified as incompatible with Art. 101(1) TFEU.
The Commission decision could therefore not lead to the invalidity of this loan agreement clause under Art. 101(2) TFEU. In this respect, the judgment was in favour of the banks, as the Commission’s EIRD decisions do not, in themselves, render a Euribor interest clause in a mortgage loan invalid where the loan agreement belongs to a different market and the lending bank did not participate in the cartel.
Binding effect under Art. 16(1) of Regulation No. 1/2003
Art. 16(1) of Regulation No. 1/2003 requires national courts not to take decisions running counter to a decision of the European Commission concerning Art. 101 or Art. 102 TFEU. This rule serves the uniform application of EU competition law and legal certainty.
However, the ECJ clarified that the binding effect of a Commission decision is not unlimited. It exists only within the limits established in the decision, in particular with regard to:
- the nature of the infringement,
- the material scope,
- the personal scope,
- the temporal framework,
- the territorial connection.
Accordingly, the Commission decision remains binding on national courts as regards the existence and scope of the established infringement. However, it is not an automatic source of invalidity for every contract that uses Euribor.
Distinction between derivatives market and loan market
The Court emphasised that the EIRD decisions concerned the market for euro-denominated interest rate derivatives. That market differs from the market to which the real estate loan agreement at issue in the main proceedings related.
The interest-rate clause in the loan agreement was limited to using Euribor as the relevant parameter for determining the variable interest rate. According to the ECJ’s findings, it was not part of the infringements established in the Commission decisions. Nor could it be assumed that the loan agreement had been concluded in order to implement or give effect to the anticompetitive agreements established by the Commission.
The ECJ also clarified that no specific effects on the level of Euribor can be inferred solely from the conduct classified by the Commission as a restriction of competition by object. It therefore does not follow from Art. 16(1) of Regulation No. 1/2003 that, because of the EIRD decisions, a national court must declare such a loan agreement clause invalid.
No automatic reimbursement of interest paid
The judgment does not give rise to any automatic right to reimbursement of loan interest paid. Anyone asserting the invalidity of a Euribor interest clause must set out the specific requirements under the applicable national law.
According to the practical assessment highlighted in Italian reporting, the person relying on the invalidity of the clause bears the burden of proving that the manipulation specifically affected the interest rate of the individual loan. This issue does not concern the finding of the cartel as such, but the effects on the respective contract.
The judgment therefore does not rule out any further examination in individual cases. However, it limits the direct effect of the Commission decisions on loan agreements that were not part of the established infringement and concern a different market.
Significance for Euribor-indexed loan agreements
The practical significance of the decision is considerable because Italian reporting refers to a large number of Euribor-indexed loan agreements. However, the legal consequences for individual contracts continue to be decided by the national courts in accordance with EU law and the respectively applicable national law.
An Italian consumer organisation participated in the proceedings as an interested party. The main proceedings originated in Cagliari. The president of the consumer organisation Adusbef, Antonio Tanza, assessed the judgment in public commentary as neither a definitive victory for the banks nor for borrowers.
The ECJ’s decision instructs national courts as to the binding effect of the EIRD decisions. However, it leaves them room to examine whether, under national law and in light of the circumstances of the individual contract, further consequences may arise.
Composition of the Court and Opinion
The judgment was delivered by the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice. Those participating included Court President K. Lenaerts, acting as a judge of the Second Chamber, and Chamber President K. Jürimäe as Judge-Rapporteur. The Opinion of Advocate General L. Medina was delivered on 12 March 2026 and preceded the judgment.
The Court decided following the written procedure and taking into account the observations of the parties to the main proceedings, the participating consumer organisation and the European Commission. The language of the proceedings was Italian.
Key findings of the decision
The ECJ answered the question referred to the effect that Art. 101(2) TFEU and Art. 16(1) of Regulation No. 1/2003 preclude the automatic invalidity of every Euribor-related contractual clause where certain requirements are not met. In particular, it is decisive whether the clause was part of the established infringement and whether the contract concerns the same market and parties involved in the cartel.
In summary, the following points emerge from the judgment:
- The EIRD decisions bind national courts as regards the established infringement within their material, personal, temporal and territorial limits.
- The binding effect does not mean that every reference to Euribor in a contract is invalid.
- A loan interest clause is not void solely because it uses Euribor as a benchmark.
- In the case of contracts on a different market and with parties not involved in the cartel, Art. 101(2) TFEU does not give rise to automatic invalidity.
- The examination of any specific effects on the individual contract remains a matter of national law and the individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
ECJ C‑60/25 Euribor: Does an interest-rate clause in a real estate loan automatically become invalid?
No. According to the ECJ, a Commission decision on Euribor manipulation does not automatically lead to the invalidity of every loan agreement clause that refers to Euribor if the contract concerns a different market and the lending bank was not involved in the cartel.
Art. 16(1) Regulation No. 1/2003: How binding are the Commission’s Euribor decisions on national courts?
National courts may not contradict the Commission decisions insofar as they concern the nature and the material, personal, temporal and territorial scope of the infringement established therein. However, this binding effect does not make the decisions an automatic basis for the invalidity of every Euribor-related contract.
ECJ Euribor judgment practical consequences: Can companies or borrowers automatically reclaim interest?
No automatic repayment claim follows from the judgment. Anyone relying on the invalidity of a Euribor clause must, under the applicable law, demonstrate the specific effects on the respective contract.
Assessment by MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
The decision makes clear that competition-law findings by the European Commission can be of considerable importance for national civil proceedings, but that their effect remains limited by the specific subject matter of the decision. Particularly at the interface between antitrust law, contract law and financial products, a careful distinction must be drawn between the market, the group of participants, the relevant period and the alleged contractual effect. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises companies, investors and private individuals on issues relating to the competition-law consequences of civil-law contractual relationships; further information can be found at Legal advice in competition law.
