Sodna praksa

  • Podatki o zadevi
    • Nacionalna ID: Supreme court, Judgement II Ips 5/2020
    • Država članica: Slovenija
    • Splošno ime:N/A
    • Vrsta odločbe: Sodba vrhovnega sodišča
    • Datum odločbe: 19/06/2020
    • Sodišče: Vrhovno sodisce Republike Slovenije
    • Zadeva:
    • Tožnik:
    • Toženec:
    • Ključne besede: contract, consumer credit, unfair terms, misleading statements, evidence
  • Členi direktive
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 8 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 8
  • Uvodna opomba


    The obligation to inform of banks is meant to help the consumer. Especially in banking, there is a big informational asymmetry because the consumer, compared to the bank, is in a significantly worse position in terms of knowledge and experience (regardless of his education and calling) in the field of bank services. The obligation to inform forbids the contracting party from concealing any important information that could influence the decision to conclude the contract from the other party. Taking into account the bank’s professional knowledge and experience, it has a duty to disclose all the information that it may know and could affect the execution of the contract. This must be done before the contract is concluded. The bank did not fulfil its obligation to inform as it did not do the bare minimum which would be to show the consumer subordinate bonds, to explain the difference between regular and subordinate bonds, to give them a copy of the necessary legal documents, and to inform them about the decision of the bank in which the risk of the subordinate bonds was explained. The judgement also governs the question of whether subordinate are the main subject matter in connection with Article 4 of the Directive 93/13/EEC. Furthermore, it rejects the claims of the bank regarding minimum harmonisation, which are not in accordance with Article 7 of the Directive 93/13/EEC.

  • Dejstva

    The bank began issuing subordinate bonds. The plaintiffs (the consumers) were regular customers of the bank and frequently bought bonds. The bank’s employee that dealt with the consumers had no knowledge of subordinate bonds and thought that she was selling the consumers regular bonds. The only document which stated that the consumers bought subordinate bonds was the bank’s document titled Terms and Characteristics of Newly Issued Bonds of the Bank, which was not available to the consumers.

  • Pravna zadeva

    Did the lower courts correctly asses that the bank did not fulfill its obligation to inform which is repugnant with Article 3 of Directive 93/13/EEC?

  • Odločba

    The First Instance Court decided that the bank did not inform the consumers regarding the subordinate bonds which is contrary to professional standards of a good bank and the principle of good faith and fair dealing. Therefore, both contracts are null. The Court of Second Instance added that since the main subject of the matter was determined vaguely, the bank did not act in accordance with the principle of good faith and fair dealing. Consequently, the consumers lost their whole principal value, meaning that there is significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumers and therefore the contract is null. The appeal on points of law was allowed but only regarding the correct use of material law of the lower instances when determining that the bank did not fulfil its obligation to inform.


    Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo

  • Povezane zadeve

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Pravna literatura

    Zadetki niso na voljo

  • Zadetek

    The Supreme Court allowed an appeal on points of law, but only regarding the question of whether the Courts of first and Second Instance used substantive law correctly when deciding that the bank did not fulfill its obligation to inform. The appeal on points of law was dismissed, giving the consumer better legal certainty than in the case of Swiss francs. Since this is an appeal on points of law, it has significant meaning as lower courts are cannot rule differently in equal situations, nor can they rule equally in different situations.