Sudska praksa

  • Detalji predmeta
    • Nacionalna osobna isprava: Supreme Court, Judgment Rev. 2245/17
    • Država članica: Hrvatska
    • Uobičajeni naziv:N/A
    • Vrsta odluke: Odluka Vrhovnog suda
    • Datum odluke: 20/03/2018
    • Sud: Supreme Court
    • Predmet:
    • Tužitelj:
    • Tuženik:
    • Ključne riječi: unfair contract term, consumer credit, protection of the collective interests of consumers, statute of limitations
  • Članci Direktive
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, link Injunctions Directive, link Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, link
  • Uvodna napomena

    The legal effects of filing a lawsuit for collective protection.

  • Činjenice

    The plaintiff concluded a motor vehicle loan contract with the defendant.

    This contract contained a term whereby a regular interest rate was agreed upon during the existence of a contractual obligation on the basis of a unilateral decision of the Bank which was not individually negotiated. That is why the plaintiff successfully argued that this is an unfair contractual term. Consequently, the plaintiff in the proceedings required the determination of the nullity of such a term because it was unfair.

  • Pravno pitanje

    The question that the plaintiff raised to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia reads: "Does the lawsuit represent the protection of collective interests and rights filed in accordance with article 131 of the Consumer Protection Act (OG 79/2007, as amended) (ZZP / 07) (hereinafter text: "lawsuit for the protection of collective interests and rights") the suit referred to in article 241 of the Law on Mandatory Relations (Official Gazette 35/05, as amended) (hereinafter: "ZOO") or the act of a creditor to whom ZOO gives the effect of interruption of the limitation period? "This question is set out in the part of the verdict marked with the letter" B ".

  • Odluka

    According to the understanding of the Court of Auditors, by the initiation of civil proceedings for the protection of collective interests of consumers, 241 ZOO/05 and the expiry of the individual restitution, claims begin to run from the moment of the final Court decision made on the occasion of that lawsuit (here 13 June 2014, which is why the statute of limitation has not been enforced).

    For further explanation see the decision of the High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia Business Code Pž-7129/13 of 13 June 2014.


    Cjeloviti tekst: Cjeloviti tekst

  • Povezani predmeti

    Nema dostupnih rezultata

  • Pravna literatura

    Nema dostupnih rezultata

  • Rezultat