Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2

ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.94.2021

As the conditions set out in the first paragraph of Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act for the admission of revision were not met, the Supreme Court rejected a motion to allow a revision of the judgement.

The consumer entered into Financial Advice Contracts with the plaintiff, a company that offers sales consulting. The plaintiff requested payment under the Financial Advice Contract. The plaintiff claimed that the content of the contract was not merely investment advice, but the preparation of the entire documentation and the organisation of the deal, the aim of which was to acquire A. in Ljubljana.

• Is an investment advisory contract, concluded with a contractor who is not authorised to provide investment services and transactions under the law governing the market in financial instruments, null and void?

• When does an individual lose consumer status in accordance with Article 2 of Directive 2011/83? Does the inclination of a natural person (when concluding a one-off contract with a company offering sales advice) whose content is in the acquisition of assets to be used for gainful activity by a later established company owned by the natural person constitute "intent" for professional or gainful activities and thus the loss or non-recognition of the consumer's position for this natural person in the sense of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Consumer Protection Act?

In Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act, the conditions for the admission of revision are set out. Since the conditions were not met in the present case, the Supreme Court rejected the proposal in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 367.c of the Civil Procedure Act. The Court allows a revision if the decision of the Supreme Court can be expected to decide on a legal issue that is important for ensuring legal certainty, uniform application of the law, or for the development of law through case law. The Court allows a review in particular in the following cases:

• if it is a point of law in respect of which the decision of the Court of Second Instance deviates from the case law of the Supreme Court;

• if it is a point of law in respect of which the case law of the Supreme Court does not yet exist and in particular if the case law of higher courts is not uniform; or

• if it is a point of law in respect of which the case law of the Supreme Court is not uniform.

The conditions set out in this Article were not met in the case at hand. Hence, the Court did not decide on the issues raised.

URL: http://www.sodnapraksa.si/?q=id:2015081111448254&database[SOVS]=SOVS&database[IESP]=IESP&database[VDSS]=VDSS&database[UPRS]=UPRS&_submit=i%C5%A1%C4%8Di&page=0&id=2015081111448254

Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo

Zadetki niso na voljo

Zadetki niso na voljo

A motion to allow a revision of the judgement was not admitted. The decision is final.