Europos e. teisingumo portalas

Bylos aprašymas
- Nacionalinis numeris: Regional Court, Klaipėda, Judgement e2A-96-889/2022
- Valstybė narė: Lietuva
- Bendrinis pavadinimas:N/A
- Sprendimo rūšis: Teismo sprendimas apeliacinėje byloje
- Sprendimo data: 03/03/2022
- Teismas: Klaipėda Regional Court
- Tema:
- Ieškovas:
- Atsakovas:
- Raktažodžiai: refund, service contract, elderly, unfair terms

Viską išskleisti|Viską suskleisti

Direktyvos straipsniai

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 2. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 2. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 2.
Įžanginė pastaba

A clause of the contract that provides for any unused payment paid by the consumer for the services at the end of the contract be set off as charity must be regarded as an unfair term of the contract.
Faktai

On 04/29/2022 a fund administration agreement was concluded between the resident of elderly home, the payer (resident's daughter) and the specialized care home for the elderly. The parties agreed that the price for the services is 800 EUR for a calendar month, 27 EUR for one day. On 4/22/2020, the daughter of the resident paid the care home an amount of EUR 800 for care services for the period from 4/29/2022 until 5/28/2020, (for 30 calendar days). The resident of the home died and the paid fee of EUR 400 for the services for 15 calendar days remained unused. Clause 2.6 of the contract provided that if the contract is terminated at the initiative of the resident (payer) or due to the resident‘s death), the remaining unused amount of money paid by the consumer is not refunded and is set off as a charity. The plaintiff brought an action before the court requesting the court to order the defendant to refund unused payment. The First Instance Court upheld the action in part. The Court stated that resident of elderly home had lived at the specialized care home for 15 calendar days and had to pay sum of EUR 405 for the services provided, so the unused payment for the services is not EUR 400 but EUR 395.
Teisės klausimas

Should the clause of the contract that provides for any unused payment paid by the consumer for the services at the end of the contract be set off as charity be regarded as an unfair term?
Sprendimas

The Court stated that clause 2.6 of the contract, which provides that if the contract is terminated at the initiative of the resident (payer) or at the event of resident's death, the remaining unused amount of payment for services is not returned and set off as support (charity), creates disproportional financial consequences for the client, contradicts the mandatory provision of the law, and therefore is invalid. Such a contractual clause creates a situation where the amount paid by the customer for the services does not depend on the scope and quantity of the services provided. The Court stated that this does not comply with the substance of the service contract. Finally, the Court noted that the support is characterized by the principles of voluntariness and gratuitousness. The content of the given contractual clause could not be influenced by the consumer, and this substantially denies the principles of providing support (charity).

URL: https://liteko.teismai.lt/viesasprendimupaieska/tekstas.aspx?id=02ba9fd0-ce7f-420b-890f-89fa98eaa973

Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas
Susijusios bylos

Rezultatų nėra
Teisinė literatūra

Rezultatų nėra
Rezultatas

The Appellate Court left the decision of the First Instance Court unchanged.

Teismų praktika

Visas tekstas