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 32 Cdo 191/2014
Member State Czech Republic
Common Name link
Decision type Supreme court decision
Decision date 29/09/2015
Court Supreme Court of the Czech Republic
Subject
Plaintiff Mgr. T. M. (a natural person)
Defendant Českomoravská stavební spořitelna, a.s., (a legal person, a joint-stock company)
Keywords abusive language, consumer, credit agreement, financial services, good faith, language, nullity, proportionality, terms & conditions

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, link Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 2.

An arrangement on evaluation number in the building savings contract (i.e. specific type of a mortage in Czech Republic), as one of the conditions for granting a building savings loan, is not unclear or difficult to understand if the evaluation number is determined by a mathematical formula and if the terms used in the formula are defined in the contract.
The plaintiff demanded that the defendant pay him the sum of CZK 62,000 with a proposal to determine that the contractual arrangements regarding the obligation to achieve a so-called evaluation number is invalid. He argued that if this condition would not be required by the defendant to grant a building savings loan, he would not have to pay the amount of CZK 121,968 representing interest on the bridging loan. It has been partly offset by CZK 46,530 CZK. The difference between CZK 121,968 and CZK 46,530 represents the amount for which the plaintiff was not given any compensation.

Participants concluded a building savings contract, of which the Terms and Conditions contained three conditions for the granting of the loan - (i) expiration of at least 24 months after the conclusion of the contract, (ii) saved at least 35% of the target amount and (iii) achievement of an evaluation number of at least 64. These conditions had to be fulfilled cumulatively. The term "evaluation number" had been defined in the Terms and Conditions separately by a mathematical formula.

The District Court and subsequently the Regional Court in the appeal procedure decided that the arrangement on evaluation number as one of three prerequisites for the allocation of the target amount, ie. granting of a building savings loan, can not be regarded as an invalid agreement. Both courts stated that this arrangement on evaluation number is clearly formulated as a mathematical formula using terms whose meaning is defined in the Terms and Conditions.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the contractual arrangement on evaluation number is not in conformity with Directive 93/13/EEC and contrary to the requirement of good faith, as it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The court in its decision identified with the decision of the Appellate Court and concluded that the plaintiff failed to challenge the legal conclusion of the appellate court that the arrangement on the requirement of the evaluation number as a precondition for granting the building savings loan is invalid.
Is an arrangement on evaluation number in the building savings contract (i.e. specific type of a mortage in Czech Republic), unclear or incomprehensible , and thus contrary to the requirements of Directive 93/13/EEC?
Full Text: Full Text
Member State National ID Common Name Directive Articles Decision Date
European Union C 484/08 link Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 2. 03/06/2010

No results available

The appeal was rejected. No party was obliged to pay the costs of the proceedings.