• Uppgifter om ärendet
    • Nationellt id-nummer: S2014/652
    • Medlemsstat: Finland
    • Vedertaget namn:KKO:2015:60
    • Beslutstyp: Beslut av högsta domstolen
    • Beslutsdatum: 15/09/2015
    • Domstol: Korkein oikeus
    • Ämne:
    • Kärande: A
    • Svarande: B
    • Nyckelord: credit agreement, financial services, unfair terms
  • Direktivartiklar
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 2. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 6, 1.
  • Huvudanmärkning
    A penalty interest of 118.80 percent based on the standard terms of a consumer credit agreement is considered as unfair and cannot be enforced against the consumer. This is the case even where the consumer, who is in the position of the defendant, has not referred to the unfairness of the term in court in which case the court is required to examine the unfairness of the term on an ex officio basis.
  • Omständigheter
    L Oy and the defendant had made a credit agreement via internet. The credit limit of the agreement was 2,000 Euro. L Oy sold its claims to the plaintiff who demanded the defendant to be obligated to pay a penalty interest of 118.80 percent to the capital for 180 days from its date of maturity and furthermore to pay penalty interest according to section 4 subsection 1 of the Interest Act. The district court held by default judgment that the defendant is obliged to pay the capital and expenses with penalty interest, according to section 4 subsection 1 of the Interest Act, to the plaintiff. The district court considered that the demand of penalty interest for 118.80 percent was clearly unfounded and it was dismissed for the part which exceeded the amount stipulated by section 4 subsection 1 of the Interest Act. The Court of Appeal did not alter the district court’s judgment.
  • Juridisk fråga
    Is demanding a penalty interest of 118.80 percent in a consumer credit agreement unfair under consumer protection legislation and can a court, by its own initiative, dismiss the cleaim for penalty interest even though the consumer has not referred to it?
  • Beslut

    The Supreme Court considered that the court’s unprompted duty to examine a matter is restricted in civil actions and that there are no exceptions to this main rule by virtue of the issue being related to consumer protection. Directive 93/13/EEC concerns contractual provisions which the parties have not separately negotiated. These kind of provisions are considered unreasonable if they cause a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations between the parties to the detriment of the consumer. The Member States shall also assure adequate and efficient means to cease the use of unfair contract terms in agreements between traders and consumers. The extensive duty to exam is therefore considered necessary in order to secure actual consumer protection. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, national courts have duty ex officio to examine the unfairness of a contract term that is included into the scope of application of the Directive when the court has all the legal material and facts to be able to do so. If the case at hand is about a standard agreement that is included into the scope of application of the Directive, the court must examine the unfairness of the contract term ex officio. The court has had the right to assess the unfairness of the contract term ex officio in this matter.

    According to the Consumer Protection Act, a contract term that is unfair to the consumer can be adjusted or ignored. According to the Annex of the Directive, a contract term the purpose or consequence of which is to demand compensation from the consumer who does not fulfill his or her obligations is to be considered unfair when the demand is out of proportion. In this case, the plaintiff’s demand is to be considered unfair. In addition, the plaintiff has not drawn up the conditions, to which the claim is based on, in a clear and intelligible manner. This fact supported the Supreme Court’s decision.

    URL: http://korkeinoikeus.fi/sv/index/ennakkopaatokset/precedent/1442216037119.html

    Hela texten: Hela texten

  • Ärendesamband

    Inga träffar

  • Doktrin

    Inga träffar

  • Resultat
    The Supreme Court held that there is no reason to amend the decisions of the lower courts, where the plaintiff’s demand for penalty interest has been partially dismissed as unfounded. The contract term which is held unfair should be ignored. However, as in this case the original decision has been appealed, the Supreme Court could not take the credit interest or lowering the penalty interest under consideration. Two of the members of the Supreme Court had a different opinion about the justifications but agreed on the result.