Evropski portal e-pravosodje

Podatki o zadevi
- Nacionalna ID: Supreme Court, Judgement 64/2021
- Država članica: Slovenija
- Splošno ime:N/A
- Vrsta odločbe: Sodba vrhovnega sodišča
- Datum odločbe: 07/04/2021
- Sodišče: Vrhovno sodišče RS
- Zadeva:
- Tožnik:
- Toženec:
- Ključne besede: unfair terms, consumer credit, nullity, imbalance between the rights of the parties

Prikaži vse|Skrči vse

Členi direktive

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 1
Uvodna opomba

ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.64.2021

The Supreme Court held that the revision is allowed on the issue of whether the principle of formal legality allows the executive court to assess in opposition proceedings whether a credit agreement (with a currency clause concluded in a directly enforceable notarial deed, in the part relating to the main subject of the agreement), contains unfair contractual conditions under the Consumer Protection Act, or to establish the grounds for annulment and on this basis reject the proposal for enforcement.
Dejstva

The consumer entered into a credit agreement with a bank in Swiss francs. Since the creditors' credit obligation significantly increased due to the increased value of CHF against EUR, the consumer could not keep up with his payment. The creditor (bank) therefore filed a motion to enforce the claim against the consumer.
Pravna zadeva

Whether the principle of formal legality allows the executive court to decide in opposition proceedings whether a credit agreement for a credit with a currency clause concluded in a directly enforceable notarial deed, in the part relating to the main subject of the agreement, contains unfair contract terms under consumer protection (Consumer Protection Act and Directive 93/13/EEC), or to establish the grounds for annulment and on this basis reject the application for enforcement.
Odločba
The Supreme 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 Supreme court allows a review especially 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 especially 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.
Since the conditions set out in the first paragraph of Article 367.a of the Civil Procedure Act for the admission of revision were met in the case at hand, the Supreme Court therefore allowed a revision to this extent.

Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo
Povezane zadeve

Zadetki niso na voljo
Pravna literatura

Zadetki niso na voljo
Zadetek

The Supreme Court allowed a revision regarding this question.

Sodna praksa

Celotno besedilo