Uniform Interpretation of Article 4(2) of UCT Directive in the Context of Consumer Credit Agreements : Is It Possible?

So much has been said about the exclusion of contractual terms from the unfairness test embedded in Article 4(2) of the UCT Directive by both the CJEU as well as the legal doctrine. Nonetheless, numerous national courts of different MS struggle with the interpretation and consequently proper application of their domestic laws implementing this provision. This particularly concerns the correct interpretation of this rule within the complex surrounding of consumer credit agreements, where an understanding of the notions deriving from the exclusion is conditioned by the proper knowledge of terms of financial and mathematical nature, such as variable interest rate, annual percentage rate of charge, currency clause, various methods of calculation etc. National courts all over the Union are repeatedly occupied by questions regarding which of these contractual terms are encompassed by the notions of the ‘definition of the main subject matter of the contract' or ‘adequacy of the price and remuneration', and particularly whether these contractual terms are transparent to an average consumer. This article investigates the approach the CJEU has taken regarding these questions and examines whether its answers are ‘transparent' enough for MS' courts