Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 5 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 5

ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:II.DOR.3.2021

The questions of fulfilment of explanatory duty, incoherent case law, the favouring of the loan in Swiss francs by the banks and the ignorance of the decisions of the Court of European Justice would not result in a decision important for ensuring legal certainty, uniform application of law or for the development of law through case law.

The consumer (plaintiff) took out a housing loan with the bank (the defendant). The loan was taken out in a foreign currency, concretely Swiss francs. The plaintiff claimed that the bank did not fulfil its explanatory duty even though it favoured the loans in Swiss francs, thus beginning proceedings. The Court of First Instance denied the consumers claims and The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement. The consumer then filed a motion for an appeal on points of law regarding the following issues: the bank´s failure to fulfil its explanatory duty, not following the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, incoherent case law of the Supreme Court of Republic of Slovenia and the favouring of loans in Swiss francs.

Do the issues of this case fulfil the legal requirements for an appeal on points of law?

In the proposal for an appeal on points of law, the plaintiff raised questions regarding the substantive and procedural issues of this case. In regard to the Consumer Protection Act, the plaintiff claims that the bank did not fulfil its explanatory duty, that European case law was not followed, that the case law of the Slovenian Supreme Court is not unified and that the bank favoured the credit in Swiss francs. The Supreme Court rejected the proposal for an appeal on points of law on substantive grounds. It ruled, that this case is not expected to decide on a legal issue important for ensuring legal certainty, uniform application of law or development of law through this case. Thus, an appeal on points of law is not possible.

Celotno besedilo: Celotno besedilo

Zadetki niso na voljo

Zadetki niso na voljo

The motion for an appeal on points of law was denied. There are only a few extraordinary legal remedies available and only under special conditions, i.e., constitutional complaint. The judgement is binding since the lower courts cannot rule differently in equal situations, nor can they rule equally in different situations. This is important as it construes a legal precedent that these questions do not qualify for an appeal on points of law.