• Dane sprawy
    • Identyfikator krajowy: Supreme Court, Judgement I NSNc 366/21
    • Państwo członkowskie: Polska
    • Nazwa zwyczajowa:N/A
    • Rodzaj decyzji: Orzeczenie sądu najwyższego
    • Data decyzji: 05/10/2021
    • 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

    By a lawsuit of 10 May 2017, the plaintiff R. Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością spółka komandytowo-akcyjna with its registered office in W. (hereinafter: R. Sp.) demanded payment for the amount of PLN 11,000 with statutory interest for the delay from the date of bringing the action to the date of payment and for the costs of the proceedings. Justifying the claim, it was indicated that the defendant failed to comply with the share purchase option agreement concluded between the parties on July 12, 2013, under which L. G. - as an option holder, sold to R. Sp. z o.o. S. K. A. - as options holders, all the shares of K. Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in K. In 6 sec. 3 of the agreement, the option holder was entitled to demand from the option provider a contractual penalty in the amount equal to thirty times the share price - in the event of failure to perform or improper performance of any of the obligations specified in the agreement, as well as falsehood of any of the declarations or guarantees contained in the agreement, submitted by the option provider. In order to secure the claim for the payment of the contractual penalty, L. G. issued a blank promissory note - which was filled in in accordance with the promissory note agreement for the amount of PLN 12,000. The amount of PLN 11,000 claimed by the lawsuit constituted the amount due for the contractual penalty - the claimant reserved the right to claim the remaining part of the contractual penalty in the future. By order of payment in the writ proceedings, issued on June 14, 2017, the District Court in B. ordered the defendant LG to pay the plaintiff R. with its seat in W. the amount of PLN 11,000 together with statutory interest for delay from May 10, 2017, to the date of payment, and the amount of PLN 2,555 for reimbursement of legal costs.

  • 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

    By issuing an order for payment in a promissory note ordering procedure, the court violates the constitutional principle of consumer protection, resulting from Art. 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland - if the consumer is not protected against unfair market practices in the manner required by Directive 93/13 and the regulations implementing it (Articles 3851-3853 of the Civil Code).

    URL: http://www.sn.pl/sites/orzecznictwo/Orzeczenia3/I%20NSNc%20366-21.pdf

    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.