The court explained that the obligation to purchase a pension annuity was established in the consumer pension accumulation agreement due to mandatory requirements provided for in the Law on Pension Accumulation. The court stated that the control of unfair terms of consumer agreements was aimed at and the scope thereof limited to contractual provisions agreed upon by the parties, and not to those provisions which arose out of mandatory requirements of national law. Therefore, the court concluded that under Directive 93/13/EEC, contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions fall out of the scope of the control of unfair terms under Directive 93/13/EEC. Based on that, the court emphasized that provisions reflecting mandatory rules, adopted by competent legislative institutions, must be presumed as being just and fair.
Based on the said arguments the court concluded that the provision of the consumer pension accumulation agreement, establishing the plaintiff’s obligation to purchase a pension annuity, cannot be considered as an unfair term.
URL: http://eteismai.lt/byla/117713154332587/3K-3-372-690/2015
Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas