Introduction
On 24 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-900/24, SVB – Neues Schweizer Viertel Betriebs + Service GmbH & Co. KG v Glarner Straße 5 GbR. The case arose as a reference for a preliminary ruling and concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, a foundational instrument of EU consumer protection law.
The dispute centres on a long-term energy supply contract containing price adjustment clauses that were found, or alleged, to be unfair. The judgment addresses several interconnected questions: what qualifies as a 'mandatory statutory or regulatory provision' within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Directive; what consequences follow from a finding of unfairness under Article 6; what role 'supplementary national provisions' play in filling the gap left by a removed unfair term; and, critically, whether a seller or supplier may unilaterally replace an unfair price adjustment clause with a term that it claims complies with the Directive.
This article examines each of these questions in turn, drawing exclusively on the text of the judgment as published by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Background and legal framework
Directive 93/13/EEC establishes a regime for the control of unfair terms in contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers. Its central mechanism is the non-binding effect of unfair terms: under Article 6 of the Directive, unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer, while the contract is to continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms.
Article 1(2) of the Directive carves out from its scope contractual terms that reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions. This exclusion is significant in the context of regulated sectors such as energy supply, where national legislation may itself prescribe or authorise certain pricing mechanisms.
Article 7(1) of the Directive requires member states to ensure that adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers. The judgment in Case C-900/24 engages directly with the power of the national court to address the consequences of removing an unfair term, and with the conditions under which that power may be exercised.
The reference for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a long-term energy supply contract, a category of agreement that presents particular challenges under the Directive because pricing structures in such contracts are often complex, multi-year, and subject to adjustment mechanisms that may shift economic risk between the parties.
The concept of mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions under Article 1(2)
One of the central questions referred to the Court concerns the proper interpretation of the concept of 'mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions' within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC. This provision excludes from the Directive's scope contractual terms that reflect such provisions, on the basis that the legislature has already balanced the interests of the parties.
The judgment addresses the conditions under which a price adjustment clause in a long-term energy supply contract may be regarded as reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions, and therefore fall outside the Directive's protective regime. This question is of considerable practical importance in the energy sector, where national regulatory frameworks frequently govern the terms on which energy may be supplied and priced.
The Court's analysis in this case clarifies the boundaries of the Article 1(2) exclusion, providing guidance to national courts on how to assess whether a given contractual term genuinely reflects a mandatory provision of national law, as opposed to merely being permitted or facilitated by such law. The distinction is material: a term that is merely authorised by national law does not automatically benefit from the exclusion.
Effects of a finding of unfairness and the continued existence of the contract
Article 6 of Directive 93/13/EEC provides that unfair terms shall not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall, if capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms, continue to bind the parties on those terms. The judgment in Case C-900/24 engages with both limbs of this provision in the specific context of price adjustment clauses in long-term energy supply contracts.
The removal of a price adjustment clause from a long-term energy supply contract raises the question of whether the contract can continue to exist without that clause. Price adjustment mechanisms are often central to the economic equilibrium of long-term supply arrangements, and their removal may leave a significant gap in the contractual framework. The judgment addresses how national courts are to approach this question and what criteria are relevant to determining whether the contract is capable of surviving the removal of the unfair term.
The role of 'supplementary national provisions' is also examined. Where a contract cannot continue in its original form following the removal of an unfair term, national courts may, in certain circumstances, substitute a supplementary provision of national law to fill the gap. The judgment provides guidance on the conditions under which this is permissible under the Directive, and on the limits of this power.
The power of the national court under Article 7(1)
Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC imposes an obligation on member states to ensure that adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms. The judgment in Case C-900/24 addresses the power of the national court to address the consequences of the removal of an unfair term, and the conditions under which that power may be exercised.
The Court's analysis in this regard is relevant to the broader question of judicial intervention in contractual relationships affected by unfair terms. National courts are required to give full effect to the Directive's protective regime, but they must do so within the framework established by the Directive itself and by the Court's case law. The judgment clarifies the scope of judicial discretion in this area, particularly in the context of long-term energy supply contracts where the consequences of removing a price adjustment clause may be far-reaching.
The conditions identified by the Court for the exercise of the national court's power under Article 7(1) are of practical significance for courts and parties in proceedings involving unfair terms in energy supply contracts and, potentially, in other long-term supply arrangements.
Unilateral replacement of an unfair term by the seller or supplier
Perhaps the most practically significant aspect of the judgment concerns the question of whether a seller or supplier may unilaterally replace an unfair price adjustment clause with a term that it claims is compliant with Directive 93/13/EEC. This question arises directly from the facts of the case, which involves a long-term energy supply contract and a seller or supplier who sought to substitute a new pricing mechanism for one found to be unfair.
The Court's treatment of this question is central to the effectiveness of the Directive's consumer protection regime. If sellers or suppliers were permitted to replace unfair terms unilaterally with new terms of their own choosing, the deterrent effect of the Directive's non-binding rule could be significantly undermined. The judgment addresses the compatibility of such unilateral replacement with the requirements of the Directive, and in particular with the principle that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer.
The judgment thus provides important guidance on the limits of contractual autonomy in the context of the Directive, and on the extent to which a seller or supplier may seek to cure the unfairness of a contractual term through its own unilateral action rather than through agreement with the consumer or intervention by the national court.
Significance for energy supply contracts and consumer protection
The judgment in Case C-900/24 is of particular relevance to the energy sector, where long-term supply contracts with price adjustment mechanisms are common. The Court's clarification of the scope of Article 1(2), the conditions for the continued existence of a contract following the removal of an unfair term, and the limits of unilateral replacement by the seller or supplier all have direct implications for the drafting and enforcement of energy supply contracts across the European Union.
More broadly, the judgment contributes to the ongoing development of the Court's case law on Directive 93/13/EEC, reinforcing the principle that the Directive's protective regime must be given full effect by national courts and that the rights it confers on consumers cannot be circumvented by unilateral action on the part of sellers or suppliers.
National courts, regulatory authorities, and market participants in the energy sector will need to take account of the guidance provided by this judgment when assessing the validity of price adjustment clauses in long-term supply contracts and when determining the appropriate consequences of a finding of unfairness.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-900/24, SVB – Neues Schweizer Viertel Betriebs + Service GmbH & Co. KG v Glarner Straße 5 GbR, delivered on 24 September 2026, addresses a series of important questions concerning the application of Directive 93/13/EEC to long-term energy supply contracts containing unfair price adjustment clauses. The Third Chamber's ruling provides guidance on the interpretation of Article 1(2), Article 6, and Article 7(1) of the Directive, and on the conditions under which a seller or supplier may seek to replace an unfair term unilaterally.
The judgment reinforces the effectiveness of the EU consumer protection framework in the energy sector and clarifies the respective roles of national courts, sellers or suppliers, and consumers in addressing the consequences of unfair terms. It is a significant contribution to the body of case law on Directive 93/13/EEC and will be of interest to practitioners, courts, and policymakers across the European Union.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications