• Dane sprawy
    • Identyfikator krajowy: Supreme Court, Judgement I NSNc 371/21
    • Państwo członkowskie: Polska
    • Nazwa zwyczajowa:N/A
    • Rodzaj decyzji: Orzeczenie sądu najwyższego
    • Data decyzji: 22/09/2021
    • Sąd: Sąd Najwyższy
    • Temat:
    • Powód/powódka:
    • Pozwany/Pozwana:
    • Słowa kluczowe: unfair terms
  • Artykuły dyrektywy
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3
  • Uwaga główna

    In the judgement, the Supreme Court indicated that agreements that create an obligation to make a payment which is secured by a promissory note may include unfair terms and shall be analysed by a court which would deliver a judgement on a debt payment originating from a promissory note.

  • Fakty

    In the prescriptive proceedings under the promissory note of September 6, 2013, the District Court in B. ordered W. M. to pay R. Spółka z o.o. S.K.A. with its registered office in W. the amount of PLN 51,000 with statutory interest per annum in the amount of 13% from August 14, 2013, to the date of payment, subject to the possibility of changing the amount of statutory interest, and the amount of PLN 4,255.00 for reimbursement of legal costs. As the complainant noted, the District Court in B., in connection with the manner in which the case was examined, did not take evidence and relied solely on the documents presented by the claimant. The defendant did not participate in the trial and did not bring charges against the payment order delivered to him to the address indicated in the lawsuit, therefore the payment order became final on September 27, 2013. Spółka R. Spółka z o.o. S.K.A. in W. instituted enforcement proceedings against the defendant, relying on its legal succession in relation to BP, running a business - Biuro Prawno-Finansowe I., who concluded an agreement with the defendant, WM, being the source of the claim, and which company was left on May 13, 2013, contributed in kind to the plaintiff company, as a result of which the company took over the rights and obligations of BP. The blank promissory note, on the basis of which the appealed payment order was issued, issued by the defendant WM and filled in by the plaintiff for the amount of PLN 70,000, was a security for the plaintiff's claims resulting from the concluded between the claimant and the defendant WM of the "general authorization" agreement of May 31, 2013, which was attached to the statement of claim.

  • Zagadnienie prawne

    Is it necessary to examine an agreement concluded between a consumer and an entrepreneur that was the basis for a promissory note signed by a consumer if the entrepreneur demanded payment of a debt indicated in the promissory note?

  • Decyzja

    In the light of the provisions of Directive 93/13 and indications regarding their interpretation, developed in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, which was also confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the national court is obliged, in each specific case involving a consumer, to ex officio assess contractual provisions to the extent that they affect its property. Failure by the court to take into account the ineffectiveness of the provision establishing a grossly excessive contractual penalty and, as a consequence, the issue of the challenged order for payment, constitutes an undoubted violation of Art. 3853 point 17 of the Civil Code in connection with Art. 3851 § 1 of the Civil Code.

    URL: https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/i-nsnc-371-21-kolejnosc-oceny-podstaw-skargi-523320938

    Pełny tekst: Pełny tekst

  • Powiązane sprawy

    Brak wyników

  • Literatura prawnicza

    Brak wyników

  • Wynik

    The Supreme Court repealed the district court judgement and returned the case to the district court.