Weekend Edition Nº166 by eulawlive

Nº166

DECEMBER 9

2023

DOMINIK DWORNICZAK

A TRULY RESPONSIBLE LENDING: PATCHING OR REARRANGING CONSUMER CREDIT LAW? COMMENTS ON THE NEW DIRECTIVE ON CONSUMER CREDITS (CCD II)

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

A truly responsible lending: patching or rearranging consumer credit law? Comments on the new Directive on consumer credits (CCD II) Dominik Dworniczak 1

On 9th October 2023,2 the Council of the European Union approved a new Directive on consumer credits (“CCD II”)3 repealing the current Directive on credit agreements for consumers from 2008 (“CCD I”).4 The new directive will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication. The CCD II introduces some awaited changes, including more extensive transparency requirements towards creditors, more thorough and comprehensive creditworthiness assessment or new ground principles of business conduct on the consumer credit market. But the new directive falls short in other areas. It does not address issues such as sustainable development on the internal market and effective national enforcement of EU law. The commentary is centred on two themes. The first one is about the most essential changes the new Directive on consumer credits brings (patching). They are analysed and then evaluated with references to the topical scholarly literature. The second theme, in contrast, is about changes the new directive does not bring (rearranging). In this part, it is argued that while the CCD II introduces many essential changes, it does not rearrange European consumer credit law in such a way that it is consistent with some EU law principles. To elaborate the argument further, the concept of truly responsible lending is defined in relation to the concept of responsible lending.5 The last two sections summarise how the new directive fulfils its objectives and what is missing. It is also indicated what role the Court of Justice can have in the future litigation on the basis of the CCD II.

1. Dominik Dworniczak is a PhD Researcher in Law at the European University Institute (Florence, Italy). His research interests include European private law, consumer protection, contract law, tort law and legal history. E-mail: Dominik.Dworniczak@eui.eu. 2. Council of the EU, ‘Asking for a loan will be safer in the EU after the Council’s final approval of the Consumer Credit Directive’, Press Release, 9 October 2023. 3. Directive (EU) 2023/2225 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Directive 2008/48/EC, OJ L 2225. 4. 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, OJ L 133, p. 66. 5. Olha O. Cherednychenko, ‘The proposal for a new EU Consumer Credit Directive: towards responsible lending in the digital age?’, 3-4 Law and Financial Markets 15, 2021, pp. 183-206.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

Patching European consumer credit law In the following sections, selected changes brought by the CCD II are presented and clarified. At the end, it is critically assessed whether the new legislation will serve its very objective, namely achieving high level of consumer protection and improving the internal market for consumer credits.6 I. Extending the scope The scope of the CCD II has been widened in comparison to the CCD I. The new directive will now also apply to credit agreements below €200, as well as buy-now-pay-later services (“BNPL”) and unsecured credit agreements above €100 000 with the purpose of the renovation of a residential immovable property.7 Moreover, the CCD II aims to establish some rules for credits granted through crowdfunding credit services. This is, however, not explicitly mentioned in the provisions of the new directive, but merely in its preamble.8 II. Adapting consumer credit to the digital environment The new directive adapts European consumer credit law to the digital environment. Above all, the Member States (“MS”) will now be obliged to require from creditors and intermediaries to inform consumers in a clear and comprehensible manner when they are presented with an offer presented on the basis of automated processing of personal data.9 The precontractual information sheets and the credit agreement will now, as far as their form is concerned, be consistent and clearly legible taking into account the ‘technical constraints’ of the medium (e.g., mobile phones) on which it is displayed and the interoperability of the devices.10 Within the framework of the creditworthiness assessment involving the use of automated processing of personal data, the consumer will have a right to request and obtain human intervention that would consist of explaining the assessment and that would enable the consumer to express her own point of view.11 III. Extending the transparency requirements and introducing ground principles of business conduct The new directive introduces more extensive transparency obligations towards the creditors in comparison to the CCD I. The catalogue of pre-contractual information has been broadened12 and the concept of ‘adequate explanations’ further specified and placed in a separate provision.13 The scope of information in the credit agreement, similarly to the precontractual information, has also been extended.14 6. Recitals 10-12 CCD II. 7. Article 2(1) CCD II and a contrario Article 2(2) CCD II. When it comes to the credit agreements below 200 euros (Recital 15 of the Preamble), BNPL (Recitals 16-17) and the unsecured credit agreements for the renovation of the immovable property (Recital 25). 8. Recitals 22, 81, 93 as interpreted together with Article 2(1) CCD II. In the draft proposed by the Commission this type of credit agreements was directly mentioned in the provisions, see Article 2(1) of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer credits, COM/2021/347 final. 9. Article 13 CCD II. 10. Articles 10-11 and 21 CCD II. 11. Article 18 (8) CCD II. 12. Articles 10-11 CCD II. Compare with Articles 5-6 of the Directive 2008/48. 13. Article 12 CCD II. Compare with Article 5(6) of the Directive 2008/48. 14. Article 21 CCD II. Compare with Article 10 of the Directive 2008/48.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

A novelty are the requirements towards the creditors’ staff. First of all, the staff should act honestly, fairly, transparently, and professionally, taking account of the rights and interest of the consumers.15 The rules of enumeration should not impede with the possible compliance with these obligations. Moreover, the CCD II will now require the staff to possess and keep up to date an appropriate level of knowledge and competence in relation to the services provided.16 IV. Advancing responsible lending (and responsible intermediaries) The CCD II further specifies and extends the lenders’ obligations within the framework of creditworthiness assessment (responsible lending). Now, the consumer’s creditworthiness will be assessed in accordance with the interest of the consumer, to prevent irresponsible lending practices and over-indebtedness. The creditors will also take into account factors relevant to meet consumer’s obligations under the credit agreement. For this, the CCD II specifies the list of documents on which basis the creditworthiness should be assessed. The general rule will now be: credit will be made available only if there is probability that the consumer will meet her obligations under the credit agreement.17

The new directive introduces more extensive transparency obligations towards the creditors in comparison to the CCD I

The new directive will also require the MS to ensure that credit intermediaries disclose and indicate additional information regarding their professional activities, such as the fees payable by the consumer to the credit intermediary for the services provided and whether they work exclusively with one or more creditors or as an independent intermediary.18 V. Promoting responsible borrowing Another novelty is that the MS will now be responsible for promoting measures supporting the financial education of consumers (responsible borrowing). They will do so, for instance, by disseminating information about the guidance that consumer organisations and national authorities may provide to consumers. But the Commission will not remain passive; it is expected to publish a report on the financial education in the MS and identify the examples of best practices that could be further developed to increase the financial awareness of consumers.19 In addition to this, the MS will ensure that independent advisory services are readily available and easily accessible to consumers who encounter (or might encounter) difficulties in repaying their credits. If a credit application is rejected, the creditor will now be required to refer the consumer to easily accessible debt advisor services.20 Similar to the financial education, the Commission is expected to present a report providing an overview of the availability of debt advisory services and the best practices for their further development.21 15. Article 32 CCD II. 16. Article 33 CCD II. 17. Article 18 CCD II. 18. Article 38 CCD II, in particular Article 38 (a)-(b) CCD II. 19. Article 34 CCD II. 20. Article 18(9) CCD II. 21. Article 36 CCD II.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

The new directive will also require the MS to ensure that credit intermediaries disclose and indicate additional information regarding their professional activities

Patching the consumer credit legislation The new Directive on consumer credits introduces many awaited changes.22 Its scope has been significantly broadened in comparison to the CCD I,23 thus contributing to providing broader and more versatile protection of consumers on the credit markets. Yet, there are doubts about the way in which the CCD II addresses credits granted with the help of crowdfunding services. It has already been criticised for the lack of comprehensive regulation and not considering peculiar characteristics of this type of credit agreements.24 A strong advantage of the new directive is that it adapts consumer credit law to the digital environment, in particular when it comes to the form of documents and the automated processing of personal data. This corresponds to some of the concerns raised in the literature,25 as well as in the New Consumer Agenda of the Commission.26 The transparency requirements for both pre-contractual and contractual information have also been expanded. Even though one could doubt in the ability of consumers to always fully comprehend information they are presented,27 the CCD II introduces a dual transparency approach to tackle this issue. On the one hand, the creditors will be required to provide adequate explanation and conduct their business in a fair and transparent manner, mirroring the obligation from

22. On the need of the reform of the old consumer credit framework, see Olha O. Cherednychenko, Jesse M. Meindertsma, ‘Irresponsible Lending in the Post-Crisis Era: Is the EU Consumer Credit Directive Fit for Its Purpose’, Journal of Consumer Policy 42, 2019. 23. Compare Article 2(1)-(2) of the Directive 2008/48 and Article 2(1)-(2) CCD II. 24. Filippo Morello, ‘From Consumer Credit to Consumer Credits? Merits and Flaws of the 2008/48/EC Directive’s Reform Proposal’, 4 European Review of Private Law 31, 2023, pp. 862-864. 25. Cherednychenko, ‘The proposal for…’, p. 189. 26. European Commission, ‘New Consumer Agenda – Strengthening consumer resilience for sustainable recovery’, 13 November 2020, pp. 12-13. 27. In particular, see Oren Bar-Gill and Elizabeth Warren, ‘Making Credit Safer’, 1 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 15, 2008, pp. 27-44.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

A strong advantage of the new directive is that it adapts consumer credit law to the digital environment, in particular when it comes to the form of documents and the automated processing of personal data

the Directive on markets in financial instruments (“MiFID II”).28 On the other hand, the MS (together with the Commission) will contribute to raising the financial awareness of consumers, recognising the need for more informed and conscious consumers, another concern raised in the New Consumer Agenda.29 This all will be complemented by embracing, in comparison to the old Consumer Credit Directive,30 responsible lending through the creditworthiness assessment. This issue had been raised in the literature,31 had appeared in the Court of Justice’s case law32 and had been conceptualised in the Mortgage Credit Directive from 2014,33 before the CCD II was drafted by the Commission. All in all, the new Directive on consumer credits patches the legislation (the CCD I) according to the new challenges on the market and the concerns raised in the literature. It is likely to give a new impetus in providing more adequate and better tailored information to consumers and in promoting, not just assuming, a model of risk-aware financial consumers. Time will tell whether this all will effectively contribute to responsible lending on the side of creditors and responsible borrowing on the side of consumers. What is apparent at the moment is that the CCD II does not rearrange European consumer credit law, it merely patches it.

Rearranging European consumer credit law? If responsible lending requires that the lender assesses, prior to concluding a credit agreement, that the borrower will meet her obligations and that it will be done without ‘incurring under financial hardship’,34 then a truly responsible lending would require more than this. In other words, it would require that the consumer credit legislation fits well with other EU law principles than achieving high level of consumer protection as well as with other policies than the ones making the credit more available and secure to consumers. But this could mean abandoning the sectoral rationale of European private law,35 towards its systematic rearrangement. The CCD II, therefore, symbolises a chance for such a rearrangement in favour of truly responsible lending. The question is whether it succeeds.

28. Morello, ‘From Consumer Credit…’, pp. 857-858. 29. In the document, there is even a direct reference to behavioural economics. European Commission, ‘New Consumer Agenda…’, pp. 17-18. 30. Compare Article 8 of the Directive 2008/48 with Article 18 CCD II. 31. Cherednychenko and Meindertsma, ‘Irresponsible Lending…’, pp. 485-490. 32. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 June 2019, Schyns (C‑58/18, EU:C:2019:467, paras 45-47). 33. Articles 18-20 of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, OJ L 060, p. 34. 34. Cherednychenko, ‘The proposal for…’, p. 194. 35. Hans-W. Micklitz, ‘European European Regulatory and Private Law - Between Neoclassical Elegance and Postmodern Pastiche’, 2021, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3753712, pp. 10-11.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

This part starts with a ‘teaser’ regarding the non-discrimination principle and EU competences, followed by examination of if and how the new directive contributes to realising the principles of sustainable development and effective enforcement of EU law at the national level. At the end, I will come to back to the concept of truly responsible lending to assess whether the CCD II introduces it. Teaser: non-discrimination and EU competences The new directive, in contrast to its predecessor, makes one explicit reference to the EU law principles: it obliges the MS to ensure that the conditions to be fulfilled for being granted a credit do not discriminate against consumers legally resident in the EU on the ground of their nationality, place of residence or any ground referred to in Article 21 of the Charter.36 The CCD II reaffirms the principle of non-discrimination from primary law and… that would be all. It does not offer a new perspective on consumer credit that would better align with other EU principles than its predecessor. But is it because the EU lacks the competence? The competence of the EU to legislate in the area of consumer credit is derived from Art. 114 TFEU concerning the objective of achieving internal market together with Art. 169 TFEU stating that the Union contributes to the attainment of high level of consumer protection and Article 38 of the Charter providing that Union policies are to ensure a high level of consumer protection.37 Nothing is, however, mentioned in the preamble to the CCD II that the completion of internal market is also conditioned by the principles enshrined in Art. 3 TEU, namely that internal market should work for, among others, the sustainable development based on a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.38 The answer to the question posed at the end of the previous paragraph is thus straightforward: the EU does not lack the competence to align the legislation aiming at improving internal market with the principle of sustainable development. The CCD II seems, however, indifferent, except the non-discrimination principle, to other EU law principles not explicitly related to high level of consumer protection. Yet is it (just) a matter of principles?

36. Article 6 CCD II. 37. See Recitals 9-12 CCD II. 38. A similar principle regarding the Union policies is enshrined in Art. 37 of the Charter.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

Green transition and consumer credit It is not just a matter of principles, but also of policies aiming at their realisation. It is thus essential to examine how the CCD II stands in relation to them. Two policies of the Commission have been selected: the European Green Deal and the New Agenda for Consumers. At the outset, they are outlined and then their objectives are compared with the changes the CCD II does and does not bring. European Green Deal was adopted by the Commission in 2019. It aims at overcoming climate challenge and environmental degradation and transforming the EU into a resource-efficient and competitive economy.39 To this effect, the Commission has been advocating the changes on the internal market by recently proposing a regulation establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products,40 a directive to prevent the green-washing and provide consumers more clarity on the misleading environmental claims,41 or a directive on common rules promoting the repair of goods.42 The financial markets has also been affected. For instance, the Commission proposed introducing a common European green bonds standard.43 Two complementary regulations regarding disclosure duties have already come into force: one concerning corporate sustainability reporting44 and another one ESG benchmarking.45 Another policy, the New Consumer Agenda, was adopted in 2020. The Commission made it clear that green transition is one of five key priority areas in consumer law. The challenge, according to the Commission, would consist of unlocking the potential of consumers contributing personally to green transition ‘through measures that empower, support and enable every consumer, regardless of their financial situation, to play an active role in the green transition (…). Access to sustainable products should not be dependent on the level of income or where you live, but should be available to everyone.’46 The question arises at this point – how does the new Directive on consumer credits align with the principles on the sustainable development and the two policies aimed at realizing it? The CCD II does not align with them. The environmental concerns are neither mentioned in the text of the directive, nor in its preamble. Yet, Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services, linked and revolving credit agreements, not to mention ‘ordinary’ credit agreements, are strongly intertwined with the choices consumers make on the market, regarding the products and services they choose.47 The instruments provided for by the new directive do not offer more than responsible 39. More on the European Green Deal, see https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed: 1910-2023). 40. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC. 41. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). 42. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules promoting the repair of goods and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, Directives (EU) 2019/771 and (EU) 2020/1828. 43. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European green bonds. 44. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting, OJ L 322, p. 15–80. 45. Regulation (EU) 2019/2089 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 as regards EU Climate Transition Benchmarks, EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks and sustainability-related disclosures for benchmarks, OJ L 317, p. 17–27. 46. European Commission, ‘New Consumer Agenda…’, p. 5. 47. Richard Ahlström et al., ‘Affluence and unsustainable consumption levels: The role of consumer credit’, 1 Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 2020, available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666784320300036.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

The instruments provided for by the new directive do not offer more than responsible lending understood as tailored to the financial capabilities and the needs of consumer at stake, whatever these needs would be

lending understood as tailored to the financial capabilities and the needs of consumer at stake, whatever these needs would be. The adequate information provided by the creditors, the high level of knowledge and fair conduct of business do not relate, for instance, to the reparability of products purchased or environmental impact of services provided within the framework of linked credit agreements. On the top of that, the BNPL services encourage even higher volume of consumption but nothing is mentioned about compensating the consequences it could potentially have on the environment.48 The lenders are also not required to engage in the promotion (or, at least, nudging) of sustainable consumption, even though many of them would be required to report it according to the new CSR Regulation. The new consumer credit directive will not contribute to the achievement of sustainable internal market. It will not direct consumers towards a truly responsible (also environmentally conscious) borrowing and creditors towards a truly responsible lending, in other words: it will not align consumerism (underpinned by lending) with sustainability. It will, however, contribute to achieving higher level of consumer protection and improving the market for consumer credits by patching the legislation. But, at the end of the day, does it even patch it effectively?

Effective enforcement at the bottom The CCD II does not provide a comprehensive system of enforcement based on the experiences with its predecessor. First of all, the new directive envisages that the penalties provided for shall be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ following the exact wording of Article 23 of the CCD I.49 There is no further elaboration on what kind of penalties a MS should introduce in the event of the lack or incomplete assessment of creditworthiness50 as a part of pre-contractual information duty,51 even though this problem has already been tackled at the Court of Justice level. The same can be said about the calculation of the Annual Percentage Rate (APR). The CCD II does not say anything about sanction in the event of an inaccurate APR. This is, however, the reality of some national courts. For instance, in the French Cour de cassation it is a frequently recurring problem.52

48. On the higher volume of consumption, in particular, see Tobias Berg et al., ‘The Economics of “Buy Now, Pay Later”: A Merchant’s Perspective’, 2023, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4448715. 49. Compare Article 23 of the Directive 2008/48 with Article 44 CCD II. 50. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 March 2014, LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais (C‑565/12., EU:C:2014:190, para 56). 51. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 March 2020, OPR-Finance (C-679/18, EU:C:2020:167, para 47). 52. For example, see L’arrêt de la Cour de cassation, 22 September 2021 (19-25.316, Publié au bulletin). More on the APR litigation in France, see Jean Bruttin, ‘Flux et reflux des recours TEG’, 3 RDI, 2022.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

Nor has the character of the enforcement been specified. There is no indication whatsoever whether penalties should have solely public nature, or whether national courts should be allowed, just like in one case before the Court of Justice,53 to provide for private law penalties. The CCD II envisages for now that the MS have competent authorities to impose fines on the creditors.54 But is it enough to provide effective enforcement of EU consumer credit law at the bottom, i.e., at the national level? After all, financial consumers already benefit from the protection granted under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (“UCTD”) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. It does not mean, however, that this protection is comprehensive.55 Specifying penalties, like public and private law sanctions, could enhance the overall efficacity of the new EU consumer credit law at the national level. Failure to do so could be detrimental to both consumers and to the very objective of improving internal market on consumer credits. On the one hand, the consumers in some MS will be better protected than in other MS thanks to a more efficient system of enforcement through a mix of public and private law sanctions. On the other hand, the lack of equal enforcement will not only fail to promote a common market in consumer credit but will be counterproductive to the objective of the directive itself, namely, to achieve a high level of consumer protection. It is even more striking knowing that the problem of underenforcement of the previous directive is recognised in the preamble of the CCD II,56 as well as in the literature.57

The new consumer credit directive will not contribute to the achievement of sustainable internal market. It will not direct consumers towards a truly responsible (also environmentally conscious) borrowing and creditors towards a truly responsible lending

A truly responsible lending? It is true that the new Directive on consumer credits introduces necessary changes. It has a broader scope, is better suited to the digital environment, introduces higher transparency standards than its predecessor, obliges the creditors to fairly conduct business together, develops a comprehensible framework for responsible lending and obliges to MS to promote the financial awareness of consumers. The CCD II patches the European consumer credit law, but it does go beyond it. If the new directive symbolises a chance for such a rearrangement towards a truly responsible lending, it fails to be one. It does not provide for a more comprehensive framework for consumer credit by addressing other EU law principles in a systematic manner. It includes the principle of non-discrimination, but it does not mention the sustainable development. There is even a risk that it will not be properly enforced. Its blurry system of penalties, dependent on each MS, is unlikely to work towards achieving the directive’s (limited) objectives. And this is notwithstanding the experiences of some national courts and of the Court of Justice.

53. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 June 2021, Ultimo Portfolio Investment (C-303/20, EU:C:2021:479, paras 31 and 37). 54. Articles 41 and 44 CCD II. 55. Geraint Howells, Christian Twigg-Flesner and Thomas Wilhelmsson, ‘Rethinking EU consumer law’, Routledge, 2017, pp. 333-334. 56. Recitals 3-6 and 79 of the CCD II. 57. Cherednychenko and Meindertsma, ‘Irresponsible Lending…’, pp. 507-511.

Nº166 · DECEMBER 9, 2023

Weekend

Edition keep smart

By galvanising the sectoral status quo of European consumer law, the new directive either makes false promises without taking the green transition into account, or does not live up to its expectations by not concentrating enough on enforcement at the national level

The reason for all this may be simple: it is only a sectoral instrument. It does not rearrange European consumer credit law and, therefore, does not provide for a truly responsible lending taking into account the objective of achieving sustainable internal market and effective enforcement of the regulatory instruments on the ground. By galvanising the sectoral status quo of European consumer law, the new directive either makes false promises without taking the green transition into account, or does not live up to its expectations by not concentrating enough on enforcement at the national level.

Is it just the beginning of the discussion? But maybe that all hope should be vested in the Court of Justice? There could be some objections. First, does the Court have the competence to supplement the CCD II?58 Considering its creative interpretation of EU consumer legislation over the last decade, it may be the case.59 But even if the CCD II is ‘corrected’, will the national courts follow the Court? Second, some of the concepts employed in the CCD II are vague, such as adequate information and fair conduct of business. It could constitute a basis to link the informational duties with the principle of sustainable development. But the existence of the vague terms does not mean necessarily that they are going to be concretised and interpreted together. For instance, the clauses of good faith and significant imbalance from Art. 3(1) UCTD had not been concretised by the Court of Justice up until 2013 even though the directive was adopted in 1993.60 Third, future developments in case law cannot be predicted: these are national courts referring questions to the Court in the preliminary procedure and each question will depend on the context of a specific case. One cannot also exclude reluctance of national courts in referring questions to the Court. Perhaps it is a high time to rethink whether the newly adopted CCD II already requires some amendments. Or whether this and perhaps other sectoral regulatory instruments should be systematically reviewed to ensure the achievement of the EU law principles. At the end of the day, it is also secondary law through which these principles are articulated and specified.

58. Hans-W. Micklitz, ‘The ECJ between the Individual Citizen and the Member States: A plea for a judge-made European law on remedies’, Working Paper, EUI LAW, 2011/15. 59. Betül Kas and Hans-W. Micklitz, ‘Judge-Made European Private Law and European Polity Building’ in: Chantal Mak and Betül Kas (ed.), ‘Civil Courts and the European Polity’, Hart Publishing, 2023. 60. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2013, Aziz (C‑415/11, EU:C:2012:700, para 77).