Teismų praktika

  • Bylos aprašymas
    • Nacionalinis numeris: 3K-3-537/2014
    • Valstybė narė: Lietuva
    • Bendrinis pavadinimas:N/A
    • Sprendimo rūšis: Aukščiausiojo Teismo sprendimas
    • Sprendimo data: 10/12/2014
    • Teismas: Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
    • Tema:
    • Ieškovas: E.C.
    • Atsakovas: AB SEB bankas
    • Raktažodžiai: consumer rights, credit agreement, unfair terms
  • Direktyvos straipsniai
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1., (j)
  • Įžanginė pastaba
    The provision of the consumer mortgage agreement, establishing a bank’s right to periodically recalculate the interest rate, cannot be considered to be unfair.
  • Faktai
    The plaintiff and the defendant concluded the consumer mortgage agreement, under which the parties agreed to fixed interest rates for the first 5 years, after which the interest rates would have to be recalculated. The said agreement also stipulated that the agreement can only be amended in writing.

    After 5 years from the conclusion of the said consumer mortgage agreement, the defendant unilaterally recalculated the interest rate. The plaintiff rejected such a change and sued the defendant. The plaintiff believed that such a provision of the consumer mortgage agreement, enabling the defendant to unilaterally recalculate the interest rate, was unfair and the interest rate could only be recalculated in the form of a written amendment of the agreement.
  • Teisės klausimas
    Can the provision of the consumer mortgage agreement, establishing a bank’s right to periodically change interest rate, be considered unfair?
  • Sprendimas

    The court concluded that the defendant’s actions, by which it recalculated the interest rate cannot be considered to be a unilateral amendment of the consumer mortgage agreement, as the recalculation of the interest rate was clearly established in the agreement itself.

    Since the plaintiff did not argue that the provision on recalculation of interest rates was unclear or ambiguous, the plaintiff cannot unfairly use consumer rights in order to avoid performing his obligations under the consumer mortgage agreement. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant duly recalculated the interest rates.

    URL: http://eteismai.lt/byla/41001847003716/3K-3-537/2014

    Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas

  • Susijusios bylos

    Rezultatų nėra

  • Teisinė literatūra

    Rezultatų nėra

  • Rezultatas
    The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim.