Europos e. teisingumo portalas

Bylos aprašymas
- Nacionalinis numeris: Supreme Administrative Court , Judgment eA-161-552/2016
- Valstybė narė: Lietuva
- Bendrinis pavadinimas:N/A
- Sprendimo rūšis: Teisingumo Teismo sprendimas
- Sprendimo data: 14/12/2017
- Teismas: Supreme Administrative Court
- Tema:
- Ieškovas: UAB “Gelvora”
- Atsakovas: Consumer Rights Protection Authority
- Raktažodžiai: consumer rights, unfair terms, distortion

Viską išskleisti|Viską suskleisti

Direktyvos straipsniai

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (c) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2., (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1.
Įžanginė pastaba

The scope of Directive 2005/29 / EC includes debt collection companies and legal relationships between debtors defaulting on consumer credit (article 2 (c) of Directive 2005/29/EC).

The company's actions in the performance of its financial obligations, without taking into account recovery actions, thereby increases the amount of recovery costs, which violates the requirements of professional diligence and distorts the behavior of the average consumer, as the average consumer would not pay the company in a manner that does not reduce the amount payable. (The order stated that the applicant had infringed article 5 (2) (b) of Directive 2005/29 / EC).

The Company has not provided the consumer with sufficient information to determine the procedure for the execution of the recovery actions, this lack of information is considered as misleading, which violates article 6 (1) of the Law of Prohibition of Unfair Business Practices for Consumers 29 (EC) No 29 / EC)
Faktai

The applicant UAB Gelvora obtained from different banks the rights of claim regarding debt, interest and other amounts due from natural persons in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Lithuania. The natural persons, from whom the applicant has performed the recovery, appealed to the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority with complaints. The State Consumer Rights Protection Authority has passed a resolution whereby applicants Gelvora UAB were imposed a fine of EUR 3 475.44 (LTL 12 000) for violation of paragraph 1 of article 3 of the Law on Unfair Commercial Practices for Consumers, where its commercial activity is considered unfair in accordance with article 3 (2) (1), article 5 (1) (4) and article 6 (1) (1), of the Law. The petitioner refused to accept this ruling and appealed to the Court.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's complaint.
Teisės klausimas

Does the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC include the legal relationship between debt collection companies and a debtor who has failed to fulfill its obligations under a consumer credit agreement?

Does the company's actions when executing recovery actions violate the requirements of professional diligence and distort the behavior of the average consumer?

Did the company fail to provide the consumer with information on how the company conducts recovery actions?
Sprendimas

The Directive must be interpreted as including in its material scope of the legal relationship between debt collection companies and a debtor who has failed to fulfill its obligations under a consumer credit agreement. The term 'product' within the meaning of article 2 (c) of the Directive falls within the scope of the activity pursued by such a company in order to recover the debt. In that regard, the fact that the debt was confirmed by a judgment and that the decision was referred to the bailiff is irrelevant.

The company's actions in the performance of its financial obligations to the Company, without taking into account recovery actions, thereby increasing the amount of recovery costs, violating the requirements of professional diligence and distorting the behavior of the average consumer, as the average consumer would not pay the company in a manner that does not reduce the amount payable. The determination of such data, in the present case, according to the judges' panel, is sufficient to establish that the applicant's activities did not comply with the requirement of professional diligence and distorted, or could distort, the economic behavior of the average consumer; the defendant was therefore justified in finding an infringement of article 3 (1) of the Law.

It is established that the company did not provide information which determines the procedure for the company's recovery actions, i.e. what specific debt recovery measures are to be applied in a particular case, what time can be taken for a debt recovery action, and for each of the debt recovery actions. Information on how the company applies rates for debt recovery actions is essential for consumers. The panel of judges agrees with the respondent's position that non-disclosure of such information may lead to a distortion of the average consumer's behavior towards his/her debt collector, since only if the details of the procedure by which the company applies rates for recovery actions are made available to the consumer provide him/her with the opportunity to make an informed transactional decision. Where such information is not disclosed, the consumer is encouraged or may be encouraged to make a decision in a transaction which he would not otherwise have accepted. Having assessed the legal framework, the panel of judges decides that such information is reasonably considered by the defendant to be essential to consumers, and its non-disclosure could have prompted consumers to make decisions that they would not have taken in other circumstances. The panel of judges agrees with the statements of the Court of First Instance that consumers are entitled to clear, comprehensive information before paying the debt, i.e. has the right to know what constitutes debt. Thus, in the present case, the company's unfair commercial practices were also manifested by misleading non-disclosure (article 6 (1) of the Law).

URL: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/416b27f0e99511e7acd7ea182930b17f

Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas
Susijusios bylos

Rezultatų nėra
Teisinė literatūra

Rezultatų nėra
Rezultatas

Dismisses the appeal of the applicant UAB Gelvora. Leaves the decision of the Court of First Instance unchanged.

Teismų praktika

Visas tekstas