Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 2.

By applying article 4 para. (1) and (2) of the Law no. 193/2000 on abusive clauses in the contracts concluded between traders and consumers (which transposes art. 3 para 1, art. 2 lit. a, art. 3 para 2, 1st sentence of the Unfair Terms Directive 93/13) the Iasi Appeal Court held that the clauses of art 4 para (1) and (2) are not incidental in the case and that the defendant’s obligations (as they are defined in the contract) are diligence obligations and not obligations of result. The Court also held that the defendant have complied with his contractual obligations, in the sense that it performed all his diligence for a good result for the consumer.

The claimant physical person argued that the credit contracts signed with the defendant contained abusive clauses, according to Law no. 193/2000, and requested the court to render the clause void. The claimant also requested judgment costs.
By the civil decision no. 832 of March 3, 2009 the Iasi Tribunal - Commercial and Administrative Contentious Section allowed the above mentioned request.
Through the above-mentioned decision the court also rejected defendant’s request for obliging the claimant to pay the judgment costs.
In order that the above mentioned decision is issued, Iasi Tribunal - Commercial and Administrative Contentious Section ruled that the credit contracts signed between the claimant and the respondent are standard, adhesion contracts.
The contested clauses are abusive only in one contract. The contractual clause that permits the bank to unilaterally modify the interest rate does not have a strong argumentation and does not rely on objective criteria. This allows the bank to modify the clause without consulting the consumer and without communicating the change to the consumer. The evolution of the financial market and the bank’s policy were established by the court as insufficient reasons for the validity of the contested clauses.
Regarding the second contract, the court established that the clauses are not abusive because they provide an objective criteria on which the bank could rely to modify the interest rate.
Taking into consideration article 13 from Law no. 193/2000, the court ruled that the contract should continue without the clause deemed abusive.
After the above mentioned decision was issued, the defendant filed appeal and through thethe appeal, canceled the Tribunal’s decision and sent the case to Iasi Court of Law (Romanian judecatorie).
In order that the above mentioned decision is issued, Iasi Appeal Court - Commercial Section held that the value of the object of the case is under 100.000 ron, and considering Decision no. 38/2008 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the competence for cases with a value under 100.000 ron belongs to the Iasi Courthouse.

The first court ruled as follows:
•?the credit contracts signed between the claimant and the respondent are standard, adhesion contracts;
•?the contested clauses are abusive only in one contract;
•?the clause allows the bank to modify the clause without consulting the consumer and without communicating the change to the consumer;
•?the reasons provided by the bank for inserting such a clause were deemed insufficient by the court;
•?the contract should continue without the clause deemed abusive. The appeal court ruled as follows:
•?the competence to judge the case belongs to the Iasi Courthouse.

Text integral: Text integral

Nu există rezultate disponibile

Nu există rezultate disponibile