• Tapaustiedot
    • Kansallinen tunniste: Supreme Court, Judgment S2016/313
    • Jäsenvaltio: Suomi
    • Lyhytnimi:N/A
    • Päätöksen tyyppi: Korkeimman oikeuden päätös
    • Päätöksen päivämäärä: 05/02/2019
    • Tuomioistuin: Supreme Court
    • Aihe:
    • Kantaja:
    • Vastaaja:
    • Avainsanat: unfair terms, credit agreement, consumer credit
  • Direktiivin artiklat
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, link
  • Ylähuomautus


    Terms of a loan contract regarding a loan guarantee and an additional text message service for the guarantee have to be assessed in accordance with the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. This is the case even where the consumer, who is in the position of the defendant, has not referred to the unfairness of the terms in Court. In this case, the Court is required to examine the unfairness of the term on an ex officio basis. The Supreme Court found these terms to be unfair according to the Directive.

  • Taustatiedot

    The consumer had a microcredit from a company R. The credit contract required the consumer to have a personal guarantee or otherwise the consumer would have to take a guarantee with a fee provided by another company. The consumer chose the guarantee with a fee provided by company A. The guarantee provided by company A had the requirement that the consumer had to use a company B's text message service with a small fee. Companies A and B had transferred their claims regarding the fees of guarantee and the text message services to a company P.

    In its application for summons, company P claimed payment of a service fee and a contractual penalty, in total 34 euros, from the consumer in accordance with the guarantee contract. Furthermore, P required the consumer to pay also a 4.50-euro fee for the text message service. The consumer did not respond to the claims.

    The District Court of Helsinki found the whole credit arrangement regarding the guarantee unfair and therefore, the claim was unfounded, so the Court dismissed the claim. The Court argued in the case inter alia that the guarantee was defined in a way that Company A was not, in fact, responsible for the credit, and therefore, the consumer had not received anything in return for the contract regarding the guarantee. Company P appealed, but the Court of Appeal of Helsinki upheld the District Court's decision on the same grounds.

    Company P appealed to the Supreme Court. Firstly, the appeal concerned the matter that the consumer should have responded to the claim and without doing so, the Court cannot assess the unfairness of the terms. The Supreme Court stated that in principle, the Court cannot give a judgment on something more than what has been claimed by a party. However, the Supreme Court argued that according to previous Supreme Court decision KKO:2015:60, a derogation from this main rule is that a court can examine ex officio, if the matter in question concerns article 3 or 6 of the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. Secondly, the appeal concerned the matter whether these terms were unfair or not.

  • Oikeudellinen kysymys

    Is Company P's claim unfounded and should it be dismissed even though the consumer as a defendant has not responded to the claim?

  • Ratkaisu

    The Supreme Court found that a court can assess ex officio a matter regarding unfair terms in consumer contracts. Further, the Supreme Court found that terms regarding guarantee and text message services did not relate neither to the definition of the main subject matter of the loan contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration for the service supplied in exchange. Therefore, the Supreme Court could assess the unfair nature of the contract terms in accordance with the Directive. In the conclusion, the Supreme Court did not amend the Court of Appeal's judgment and found that Company A's service fee claimed by Company P exceeds the maximum interest cap for consumer loans and a text message service with an additional fee is a forbidden text message service. Therefore, the terms regarding these services are unfair and in contradiction with the legislation on consumer protection, therefore the plaintiff's claim was unfounded.

    URL: https://korkeinoikeus.fi/fi/index/ennakkopaatokset/precedent/1549278624267.html

    Koko teksti: Koko teksti

  • Asiaan liittyvät tapaukset

    Ei tuloksia saatavilla

  • Oikeuskirjallisuus

    Ei tuloksia saatavilla

  • Hakutulos

    The Supreme Court's ruling is final.