When you take out a consumer credit agreement, the law (stemming notably from the loi Lagarde) requires lenders to provide you with a Standard European Consumer Credit Information form, commonly known as SECCI (FIPEN in French). But why is it so important?
The SECCI: An Essential Document
The SECCI is not just a piece of paper. It is an essential document designed to:
- Enable you to compare different credit offers easily.
- Provide you with the necessary information to understand the extent of your commitment.
- Inform you of the main obligations incumbent upon you as a borrower.
In short, it must enable you to make a fully informed decision as to whether this credit is right for you.
Among the critical information the SECCI must contain is the APR (Annual Percentage Rate). Note that this APR must be unique and presented using a clear representative example, including all calculation assumptions. An omission or ambiguous presentation of the APR (such as a “rate range”) may result in severe sanctions for the bank (TI Abbeville, 31 juill. 2020, no 19-000355).
The Burden of Proof: Did You Actually Receive the SECCI?
This is where the matter becomes delicate. The bank has an obligation to provide you with this SECCI. But it must still be able to prove it.
Historically, many loan offers contained a standard clause in which the borrower acknowledged having received the SECCI. One might think that your signature on this contract would suffice. Think again!
The Cour de cassation (Cass. 1re civ., 7 juin 2023, no 22-15552; Cass. 1re civ., 5 juin 2019, n 17-27066), aligned with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, 18 Dec. 2014, n C-449/13, CA Consumer Finance), is very clear on this point: such a standard clause constitutes merely a simple “indication”. It is not sufficient on its own! The lender is required to corroborate this indication with one or more additional elements. This is the crucial nuance of the law of evidence in this area.
What Generally Does NOT Constitute Sufficient Proof:
- A document originating solely from the bank: If the document purporting to prove delivery comes only from the bank and bears neither your signature nor your initials, it cannot serve as valid corroboration (Cass. 1re civ., 7 juin 2023, no 22-15552).
- The mere contractual bundle: The bank cannot simply produce the entire set of contractual documents, even if they include the SECCI. Why? Because nothing guarantees that this bundle reached you in its entirety. The bank must prove the actual dispatch of the bundle (CA Caen, 6 mars 2025, no 24/00917).
- Proof of viewing a page inviting the borrower to read the SECCI: A bank cannot prove delivery by attesting that you viewed a page of the offer that invited you to “take note of” the SECCI. Inviting someone to take note and actually delivering the form are two different things, and proof of one does not count for the other (CA Rouen, 30 nov. 2023, no 22/03457).
What Could Be Considered Sufficient Proof:
The courts are strict, but certain avenues exist for the bank to prove delivery:
- Your signature or initials on the SECCI itself: Although no legal text explicitly requires the SECCI to be dated and signed by the borrowers, the inclusion of your initials or any other handwritten annotation on the form itself or beneath the relevant clause could have usefully proved the effective delivery (CA Reims, 4 avr. 2023, n 22/01056 and CA Bordeaux, 5 janv. 2023, n 20/00910).
- An additional piece of evidence not originating solely from the bank: The Cour de cassation suggested that this indication must be corroborated, but remains open as to the exact nature of the elements (Cass. 1re civ., 7 juin 2023, no 22-15552). A letter as supplementary proof has already been accepted (CA Colmar, 13 juin 2022, n 21/01199).
It is important to note that there are sometimes divergent interpretations among lower courts. For example, one court of appeal considered that an unsigned and uninitialed copy of the SECCI could suffice to corroborate the indication in the clause (CA Paris, 13 juin 2024, n 22/19610). However, this position is considered questionable by legal scholars, as it could enable lenders to circumvent the rigor required by the Cour de cassation and the CJEU. Many lower court judges, on the contrary, require a signature on the SECCI. Caution therefore remains warranted.
The Consequences for the Bank: Forfeiture of the Right to Interest
If the bank fails to prove that it duly provided you with the SECCI in accordance with the legal requirements, it faces a major sanction: the forfeiture of the right to interest (articles L312-12 and L341-1 du code de la consommation).
In plain terms, this means that you will no longer have to repay the interest on the credit, but only the principal borrowed. This is a severe sanction aimed at protecting borrowers and ensuring compliance with the lender’s pre-contractual obligations.
My Advice as a Lawyer for You, as Individuals:
When in doubt, seek legal advice! If you believe the bank failed to fulfill its obligations regarding the delivery of the SECCI, do not hesitate to consult a banking law attorney. An analysis of your file will determine whether action can be taken to obtain the forfeiture of the bank’s right to interest.
Consumer protection lies at the heart of these rules. As a borrower, you have rights, and it is crucial to know them in order to defend yourself effectively against credit professionals.
Never forget that information is your best ally!
