Evropski portal e-pravosodje - Case Law
Zapri

BETA RAZLIČICA PORTALA JE ZDAJ NA VOLJO!

Obiščite BETA različicoevropskega portala ePravosodje in opišite svojo izkušnjo!

 
 

Navigacijska pot


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID link
Država članica Slovenija
Common Name link
Decision type Court decision, first degree
Decision date 06/11/2013
Sodišče Upravno sodišče
Zadeva
Tožnik Unknown
Toženec The Market Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia
Ključne besede consumer, undue influence, unfair terms, vulnerable consumer

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1.

A contractual term shall be regarded as unfair if it, contrary to the requirement of good faith, causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The Market Inspectorate, as the body of first instance, has prohibited the plaintiff to organize or sell tourists trips until remedying the deficiencies, as it had found that the plaintiff had been using two unfair contractual terms, namely he was overcharging for the reminders in case of non-payment of the instalments and in case of resolving a complaint by the passenger. It turned out that the interest charged for the payable amount was three times lower than the costs of a reminder, therefore, this practice caused a significant imbalance to the detriment of consumer. Moreover, the plaintiff provided hiself with a guaranteed flat-rate compensation for potential own loss without even having to determine the amount of the loss.
What is considered an unfair contractual term?
The court decided that the challenged decision is correct and that the terms and conditions of the plaintiff contain contractual terms that are unfair to the consumer or constitute unfair commercial practices. The court established that the actions of the plaintiff require from a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation, and that the plaintiff therefore tried to benefit from a stronger position of the trader. Furthermore, the court found that the actions of the plaintiff as regards the guaranteed flat-rate compensation for potential own loss without even having to determine the amount of the loss caused a significant imbalance between the contractual obligations of the parties.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The plaintiff's request was denied.