Evropski portal e-pravosodje

Podatki o zadevi
- Nacionalna ID: Supreme Court, Judgement 14/2021
- Država članica: Slovenija
- Splošno ime:N/A
- Vrsta odločbe: Sodba vrhovnega sodišča
- Datum odločbe: 01/09/2021
- Sodišče: Vrhovno sodišče RS
- Zadeva:
- Tožnik:
- Toženec:
- Ključne besede: consumer credit, unfair terms, nullity, imbalance between the rights of the parties, court

Prikaži vse|Skrči vse

Členi direktive

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4
Uvodna opomba

ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.14.2021

The conditions set out in Article 367.a(1) of the Civil Procedure Act for the admission of revision were not met therefore the Supreme Court rejected a motion to allow a revision of the judgement regarding the annulment of the consumer credit agreement in Swiss francs.
Dejstva

The consumer (plaintiff) concluded a credit agreement with the defendant (bank) with a currency clause in CHF. After the conclusion of the credit agreement, the value of CHF increased against EUR, which significantly increased the creditors' credit obligation. He claimed that the notarial deed of 27 February 2008 and the credit agreement of 27 February 2008 were null and void. He also applied for a declaration that the registration of the mortgage was invalid.
Pravna zadeva
- Is it true that an assessment of the inadmissibility of a contractual condition can be made only if the contractual condition at issue is unclear and incomprehensible?
- Are the conditions for the admission of revision met?
Odločba
Since 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 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.
Those conditions were not met in the present case.

Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo
Povezane zadeve

Zadetki niso na voljo
Pravna literatura

Zadetki niso na voljo
Zadetek

The Supreme Court ruled that the consumer (plaintiff) had not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore rejected the motion to allow a revision (second paragraph of Article 367.c of the Civil Procedure Act). The decision is final.

Sodna praksa

Celotno besedilo