• Dane sprawy
    • Identyfikator krajowy: Supreme Court, Judgement I NSNc 535/21
    • Państwo członkowskie: Polska
    • Nazwa zwyczajowa:N/A
    • Rodzaj decyzji: Orzeczenie sądu najwyższego
    • Data decyzji: 01/12/2021
    • 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

    From the promissory note of 30 September 2015, the District Court in B. ordered J. H. (as issuer of the promissory note) and T. H. (as surety for the promissory note) to pay jointly and severally to R. Spółka z o.o. S.K.A. with its registered office in W. the amount of PLN 11,000 with statutory interest per annum in the amount of 13% from August 27, 2015 to the date of payment, subject to the possibility of changing the amount of statutory interest and the amount of PLN 2,555.00 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 claimant's statements and the attached documents. On August 22, 2013, Spółka R. Spółka z o.o. S.K.A concluded a "share purchase option agreement", under which the defendant J. H. sold to him all the future ordinary shares of K. S.A. based in Katowice along with the rights related to these shares. In connection with the conclusion of the contract, R. Spółka z o.o. S.K.A paid J. H. the amount of PLN 1,000 as the "Share Price". The blank promissory note, on the basis of which the appealed order for payment was issued, issued by the defendant JH, guaranteed by TH, and filled in in accordance with the promissory note agreement for the amount of PLN 50,000, was a security for the claimant's claims for payment of a contractual penalty resulting from the contract concluded between the claimant and the defendant JH " share purchase option agreement "of 22 August 2013. In the" share purchase option agreement ", the defendant assured that he was entitled to acquire the abovementioned share.

  • 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

    Procedural provisions are intended to ensure legal certainty, but their application may not lead to a further weakening or de facto exclusion of constitutionally guaranteed consumer protection. In writ proceedings based on a promissory note issued by the consumer in blank and then supplemented by the creditor, the defendant consumer's situation is much weaker, because the possibility of bringing charges against them is related to the fulfilment of conditions which, in the light of the CJEU judgement, are too strict to ensure an equal position of a consumer towards a creditor holding a blank promissory note. As a result, the party to the "share purchase option agreement" who is a consumer does not have the possibility to adequately defend his interests by effectively carrying out evidence for circumstances such as the expiry or non-existence of an obligation, and there is no effective possibility of contesting its amount. If the claim pursued by the claim results from a blank promissory note securing the claim resulting from the contract concluded between the consumer and the entrepreneur, ensuring the protection specified in Council Directive 93/13/EEC requires the court to consider the case taking into account the content of the basic relationship. Since the provisions of the promissory note agreement, (drafting the content of the contract concluded between the entrepreneur and the consumer) affect the jurisdiction of the court, they are subject to control in this respect as to their compliance with Art. 3851-3853 of the Civil Code, carried out by the court ex officio. Taking a different view would not ensure the effectiveness of EU law; on the contrary, it would lead to a significant - unjustified - restriction of consumer protection in matters based on a promissory note obligation. Failure by the court to take into account the consumer nature of the basic legal relationship leads to the violation of Art. 3853 point 23 of the Civil Code in connection with Art. 3851 § 1 of the Civil Code.

    URL: http://www.sn.pl/sites/orzecznictwo/orzeczenia3/i%20nsnc%20180-21.pdf

    Pełny tekst: Pełny tekst

  • Powiązane sprawy

    Brak wyników

  • Literatura prawnicza

    Brak wyników

  • Wynik

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