European e-Justice Portal

Case Details
- National ID: Supreme Court, Assignments hearing, Decision SKC-655/2021, C28312614
- Member State: Latvia
- Common Name:N/A
- Decision type: Supreme court decision
- Decision date: 28/12/2021
- Court: Supreme Court
- Subject:
- Plaintiff:
- Defendant:
- Keywords: consumer rights, the concept of consumer, unfair contract terms, penalty

Expand all|Collapse all

Directive Articles

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2, (c) Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 5 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 5
Headnote

ECLI:LV:AT:2021:1228.C28312614.9.L

If a contract for development and career support services is concluded with a minor when it is not yet certain whether he will conclude a professional athlete contract in future, the former contract is subject to consumer protection law and, specifically, regulation of unfair contract terms.
Facts

A limited liability company brought a claim against a natural person and his parents for the payment of different penalties and a remuneration arising from the contract for development and career support services concluded with the above person, when he was a minor, and his parents. Consequently, the co-defendants brought a counterclaim requesting two contractual terms be deemed invalid. Hearing the case for the first time, the appeal instance court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim. The Supreme Court revoked this judgement in part by returning the case to the appeal instance court for a repeated review but refused to apply for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union. After reviewing the case repeatedly, the appeal instance court again dismissed the claim. The company (the plaintiff) brought a cassation claim challenging the validity of the appeal instance court judgement and requesting to apply to the Court of Justice of the European Union with a referral for a preliminary ruling.
Legal issue

Is the person who concluded the contract for development and career support services as a minor a consumer?
Decision

The Supreme Court found that the appeal instance court judgement corresponds to the requirements of civil procedure rules. In addition, the Supreme Court established that the appeal instance court did not err by finding that the co-defendant who concluded the contract in question, being as a minor, acted as a consumer. The Supreme Court refused to apply to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling as a similar request had already been filed by the plaintiff and had been previously dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the question which should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union has been already answered by that court in one of its previous cases.

URL: https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/nolemumi/pdf/467063.pdf

Full text: Full text
Related Cases

No results available
Legal Literature

No results available
Result

The Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings by affirming the appeal instance court judgement.

Case law

Full text