European e-Justice Portal - Case Law
Close

BETA VERSION OF THE PORTAL IS NOW AVAILABLE!

Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!

 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 834/2009
Member State Spain
Common Name Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros (ADICAE) v. Caja Rural de Valencia
Decision type Other
Decision date 22/12/2009
Court Tribunal Supremo (Supreme court)
Subject
Plaintiff
Defendant
Keywords

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 5 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 6, 1.

1. The use of intricate technical language and the absence of clarity in writing the definition of the financial risk on VC investments contracts make the clause unfair and therefore void.
2. A collective action of cessation can be brought up to the Court even when the illicit conduct has already ceased.
The association of users of banks, saving banks and insurance services known as ADICAE brought a collective action of cessation against Caja Rural de Valencia to avoid the use of a clause in VC investments which defined the financial risk of the product. ADICAE demanded the nullity of this “unfair contract term” and the pay back of the loss caused by these contracts. This financial product was offered in an indiscriminate and careless way, without explaining (in most cases) that it was not a regular fixed term deposit, but a product in which a total or partial loss of the investment was possible.
The Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court declared both the nullity and elimination of the clause due to its absence of clarity and lack of plain language. The clause infringes the rule established in arts. 5.4 of the Law 7/1998 on Standard Terms in Contracts and 10 of the Law 26/1984 on Protection of the Consumers and Users, making extensive use of small print and technical language which impedes its right comprehension by a layman on the subject. Caja rural de Valencia had to refund the amounts that had charged on the basis of this clause. The Supreme Court confirmed the former reasoning. Furthermore the Supreme Court explicitly states that, according to art. 12.2 of the Law 7/1998, a collective action of cessation can be brought up to the Court even when the illicit conduct has already ceased (which was the case here) because “the action of cessation is not only addressed to stop the illicit behaviour, but to prevent it in the future”.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available