Consumer loan agreements are usually subject to strict regulation to protect the client from abuse. However, not everything is written in law: the ECJ’s recent judgement of the 8th of May 2025 confirms that the autonomy of the parties can play a key role in agreeing on solutions in the case of default.
Context and origin of the case
Two consumers executed personal loan contracts with Abanca that included an acceleration or early maturity clause: if certain fees went unpaid (either 3% or 7% depending on the status of the contract), the bank could demand immediate payment of the whole loan amount. However, this clause gave the borrower a month as from the payment order to pay the outstanding debt. Abanca declared early maturity and judicially claimed the full amount. The Court of First Instance no. 8 of La Coruña, in the face of the possible abusiveness of the clause, suspended the trial and raised the issue before the ECJ.
The La Coruña court recalled that, according to European case law, in order to evaluate whether these clauses are abusive, it must be considered whether a legal remedy exists that allows the consumer to avoid the early maturity. However, in Spanish regulations on personal loans there is no specific law that recognises said remedy, unlike with mortgage loans. In view of this loophole, the judge was also asked if the one-month period stipulated in the contract would be enough to prevent early maturity.
These issues are crucial because Directive 93/13/CEE prohibits abusive clauses that, contrary to good faith, cause ‘an important imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer’. Traditionally, the judge must examine if the acceleration has the effective means to allow the consumer to avoid its application. In Spain, without specific legislation on personal loan agreements, the question was whether it was enough for the contract itself to offer a remedy instead of the legislator.
The ECJ’s position
The Court of Justice handed down a judgement on the 8th of May 2025 (joined cases C-6/24 and C-231/24) establishing that it is a national judge’s responsibility to check if the clause causes imbalance, considering whether it is an ‘appropriate and effective means that allows the consumer to avoid this clause’s application or remedy its effects’.
In short, it is possible to introduce acceleration in contracts that are not subject to extensive regulations. Although this means that the contract should provide remedies to deprive the acceleration of effect, it is not necessary for the legislator to include these means in Spanish law so that financial entities may adopt them.
Despite the fact that the ECJ has established that it is a national judge’s responsibility to check the adequacy and effectiveness of the contractual remedy adopted, the ECJ has underlined that the fact that we have similar mechanisms (like in the case of mortgage contracts), is an ‘especially pertinent’ element when it comes to the question of whether the one-month grace period is enough.
Practical repercussions for consumers and financial entities
This ECJ criterion changes the interpretation of remedies to early maturity and gives the parties more autonomy. For consumers this means that, if the contract gives them a reasonable period in which to pay the total amount of the debt, they may use it to stay the early maturity. In practice, if they receive a payment order to be paid within a month, they will have real time to gather the money and avoid losing the loan. In a nutshell, the protection is now centred on making sure the period is enough to correct the default.
For financial entities this means that acceleration clauses will not be null and void just because they exist: it is sufficient if the loan includes a real remedy. The entities may continue to use these early maturity clauses, provided that they respect the above requirements. The judgement also brings the situation into line with mortgage law, confirming that a contractual clause may reproduce the guarantees (stay periods) that before had to be specifically legislated for.
In conclusion, the judgement provides a clear criterion: an early maturity clause shall not be abusive if it allows the debtor to pay off his debt within a ‘materially sufficient’ period (for example, a month) after default. This clarity favours legal security in the financial sector. Banks and clients now know what to expect when analysing these contracts: a national judge will check if the clause offers an effective stay mechanism within a fair period. In aligning the Directive’s interpretation with the actual contents of the contract in question contractual commonplace, the Court of Justice avoids the insecurity derived from the absence of a specific law and contributes towards credit contracts being interpreted in a coherent way.
Alex Santolaria
Vilá Abogados
For more information please contact:
16th of May 2025
