Euroopan oikeusportaali - Oikeuskäytäntö

Tapaustiedot
- Kansallinen tunniste: Supreme Court, Judgement 8/2019
- Jäsenvaltio: Suomi
- Lyhytnimi:N/A
- Päätöksen tyyppi: Korkeimman oikeuden päätös
- Päätöksen päivämäärä: 05/02/2019
- Tuomioistuin: Korkein oikeus
- Aihe:
- Kantaja:
- Vastaaja:
- Avainsanat: consumer credit, consumer debt, credit agreement, ex officio, unfair terms

Laajenna kaikki|Supista kaikki

Direktiivin artiklat

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 2.
Ylähuomautus

ECLI:FI:KKO:2019:8

According to the Supreme Court, the terms of a SMS based guarantee service did not concern the main subject matter of a small loan contract or the adequacy of the agreed price, which are regulated in Article 4(2) of the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. Thus, on the basis of Chapter 5, Section 13 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the District Court had had a duty to investigate the unfairness of the contract’s terms ex officio. The terms of the small loan contract were deemed to be unfair for the consumer.
Taustatiedot

Consumer S (hereinafter "the consumer") had taken an instant credit of EUR 30 from Company R, the condition for which had been either a personal guarantee obtained by the borrower or a paid guarantee issued by Company A. The consumer had chosen Company A as its guarantor, whose service required the use of the Company B's paid SMS service. Company A and Company B had transferred their receivables from the consumer to Company P (hereinafter "the plaintiff"). In its action against the consumer, the plaintiff claimed an obligation to pay a total fee and a contractual penalty of EUR 34 on the basis of the guarantee agreement and a fee of EUR 4.50 on the basis of the SMS service agreement. The consumer did not respond to the lawsuit.
Oikeudellinen kysymys

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff’s claims were manifestly unfounded and could therefore have been rejected, even though the consumer had not responded to the actions in the lower courts. Thus, the Supreme Court had to asses whether Article 4(2) of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts applied in this case, and after that, the unfairness of the terms of the small loan contract.
Ratkaisu

The Supreme Court held that the terms of the guarantee service did not concern the main subject matter of the small loan contract, because requiring collateral, such as a guarantee, for a small loan is very exceptional.

In addition, on the basis of the CJEU decision in the case Matei, and the fact that the creditor had not, directly or through the guarantor, provided any real consideration for the fees agreed to be paid by the consumer under the guarantee agreement or the SMS service, the Supreme Court held that the terms did not concern the adequacy of the agreed price either. The Supreme Court found that the SMS based paid guarantee service was an ancillary service within the meaning of Chapter 7, Section 6 of the Consumer Protection Act, according to which the costs of such service must be included when calculating the overall credit costs of a consumer loan. Since the overall cost of the loan exceeded the maximum cost of credit regulated in the Chapter 7, Section 17a of the Consumer Protection Act, the terms of the contract were unfair for the consumer. Furthermore, the use of such a SMS service was deemed to be contrary to the Chapter 7, section 13(2)(3), which prohibits the use of extra-cost text message services in credit-related transactions. The Supreme Court stated that because consumers are not bound by unfair terms in a contract between a trader and a consumer, the plaintiff’s action was manifestly without a basis and therefore had to be dismissed.

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

Koko teksti: Koko teksti
Asiaan liittyvät tapaukset

Ei tuloksia saatavilla
Oikeuskirjallisuus

Ei tuloksia saatavilla
Hakutulos

The Supreme Court found that Company A's service fee claimed by the plaintiff 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 Supreme Court held that the terms regarding these services were unfair and in contradiction with the Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court stated that because consumers are not bound by unfair terms in a contract between a trader and a consumer, the plaintiff’s action was manifestly without a basis and therefore had to be dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Helsinki District Court and Helsinki Court of Appeal that had rejected the plaintiff’s demands.

Oikeuskäytäntö

Koko teksti