Euroopa e-õiguskeskkonna portaal

Juhtumi üksikasjad
- Isikutunnistus: Supreme Court, Judgment 2-15-17677
- Liikmesriik: Eesti
- Lühinimetus:Margus Johanson vs Nordea Bank AB
- Otsuse liik: Ülemkohtu otsus
- Otsuse kuupäev: 01/11/2017
- Kohus: Supreme Court
- Teema:
- Hageja: Margus Johanson
- Kostja: Nordea Bank AB
- Võtmesõnad: Unfairness, standard term

Laienda kõik|Kitsenda kõik

Direktiivi artiklid

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1.
Põhimärkus

ECLI:EE:TLRK:2018:2.15.17677.2411

The trader’s standard term that carries the risk of receiving the bank’s notice of termination of a consumer credit agreement, is unfair for the consumer.
Faktid

The parties of a consumer credit contract were in dispute over the validity of the termination of the consumer credit contract. The bank had sent the notice of termination to the last address that the consumer had communicated to the bank. However, the consumer had not received the notice.

The bank’s Terms and Conditions for consumer credit contract stipulated that a notice or statement sent by the bank to the client, or a person entitled to receive such notice on behalf of a client, is deemed to be received by the client if the notice has been sent to the latest address (including e-mail address) or communicated to the telephone number given to the bank by the client, and in a period of time normally necessary and expected for transmitting the notice via the respective method of communication used. means has elapsed.

The Second Instance Court considered this standard term unfair and void, and found, consequently, that the consumer credit contract was not validly terminated.
Õigusküsimus

Can a standard term that carries the risk of receiving the bank’s notice of termination of a consumer credit agreement be considered unfair for the consumer?
Otsus

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Instance Court had correctly considered the described standard term to be unfair and thus void. The Supreme Court explained that this standard term lays all the risk of receiving a bank’s notice on the consumer, irrespective of the content of the notice (breach of contract, termination of a contract, etc). The law, however, distributes this risk differently, depending on the content of the notice. Such standard term is, therefore, to be considered unfair. Furthermore, such term is entirely void as the content of the term cannot be revised or interpreted in a way which allows part of the term to remain valid.

URL: https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=2-15-17677/33

Täistekst: Täistekst
Seotud juhtumid

Tulemused puuduvad
Õiguskirjandus

Tulemused puuduvad
Tulemus

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Second Instance Court which found the standard term unfair.

Kohtupraktika

Täistekst