Jurisprudenţă

  • Detalii privind cazul
    • ID național: Decision no. 3234/2014
    • Statul membru: România
    • Denumire comună:N/A
    • Tipul de decizie: Hotărârea Curții Supreme
    • Data deciziei: 23/10/2014
    • Instanţa: Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie
    • Obiect:
    • Reclamantul: Unknown
    • Pârâtul: Unknown
    • Cuvinte-cheie: abusive language, standard contract
  • Articole din directivă
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 2. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 7, 2.
  • Notă preliminară
    (1) The court is entitled (more than that, is obliged) to analyse a clause which regards the main object of the agreement even if such clause was drafted in a concise and comprehensible manner.
    (2) The court is not entitled to modify the content of an abusive claim, but only to annul such clause.
    (3) The clause "publishing of the variable interest rates at the defendant's headquarter" is not clear and does not permit the consumer to anticipate the value of such fee at the conclusion of the facility agreement. Further, this clause is deemed to be an abusive one.
  • Fapte
    The plaintiff has concluded a facility agreement with the defendant. Afterwards, the plaintiff requested to the court to state that several clauses comprised in the facility agreement are abusive, to receive back the payments made in respect of such clauses and to state the absolute nullity of such clauses.
  • Chestiune juridică
    (1) Is the court entitled to analyse a clause which regards the main object of the agreement even if such clause was drafted in a concise and comprehensible manner?
    (2) Is the court entitled to modify the content of an abusive clause?
    (3) Does the phrase "the variable interest rate shall be published at the defendant's headquarters" constitute an abusive clause? Is such clause drafted in an easily comprehensible language?
  • Hotărârea

    The court stated that in this case the public interest shall prevail over the private interest of the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff (as consumer) does not have the knowledge and the position held by the defendant (as professional) and the consumer should be protected. The court stated that is empowered (more than that, is obliged) to analyse the calculation method of the administration commission even if it is interpreted to be part of the price (which represents the main object of the facility agreement).
    The court stated that it cannot intervene with respect to the content of the clause and to modify as per the plaintiffs' request (ie to interpret the variable interest rate as being Euribor interest rate at 6 months plus a fixed value of 1.4 percentage points), but only to annul it as being abusive. The court rejected the plaintiffs' interpretation of the law in this respect.
    The court stated that in such case the plaintiff does not have the possibility to understand the calculation method of the variable interest rate.

    Text integral: Text integral

  • Cazuri conexe

    Nu există rezultate disponibile

  • Doctrină

    Nu există rezultate disponibile

  • Rezultat
    The court admitted the recourse submitted by the plaintiffs and sent the case to a lower court for a retrial.