Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Regional Court, Riga, Judgement CA-0933-21/29 (C30787219)
    • Member State: Latvia
    • Common Name:N/A
    • Decision type: Court decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 26/05/2021
    • Court: Rīgas apgabaltiesa
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords: consumer rights, unfair terms
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 3. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I
  • Headnote


    If a contract contains a penalty clause which is an unfair contract term, this clause shall not be applied.

  • Facts

    The loan contract together with the mortgage contract was concluded between a consumer and the bank. Later, both contracts were amended several times. The consumer failed to keep up with the required payments under the loan contract. The bank as a lender filed an application for uncontested enforcement of obligations which was satisfied and submitted for enforcement to a court bailiff. The court bailiff informed the debtor for the organisation of an auction for the sale of the pledged real estate. The consumer brought a claim to the court requesting to suspend the uncontested enforcement of obligations and to recognise the requested debt as ungrounded. The first instance court dismissed the claim. The court established that the general parts of both contracts are based on standard contract terms which are non-negotiated. The court established that none of the situations for unfair contract terms may be established. The consumer as a claimant appealed this judgement to the appeal instance court, inter alia, claiming that the contract provisions contain unfair contract terms which were not sufficiently assessed by the first instance court.

  • Legal issue

    The question to be decided by the appeal instance court related to the issue of whether the contractual clauses in question are unfair.

  • Decision

    The appeal instance court evaluated different aspects of the case including an issue raised in the appeal claim concerning alleged unfairness of the contractual clauses in question. The appeal instance court disagreed with the appellant’s motive concerning unfairness of the contract terms. The court concluded that the first instance court assessed the alleged unfairness of the contract terms in question and justly acknowledged that no unfair contract terms could be established in the present case.


    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result

    The court dismissed both the appeal and the claim. The judgement was appealed to the Supreme Court but later entered into force as the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings.