Europos e. teisingumo portalas - Case Law


Apsilankykite beta versijos Europos e. teisingumo portale ir išsakykite, ką apie jį manote!


Naršymo kelias

menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 3K-3-537/2014
Valstybė narė Lietuva
Common Name link
Decision type Supreme court decision
Decision date 10/12/2014
Teismas Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
Ieškovas E.C.
Atsakovas AB SEB bankas
Raktažodžiai consumer rights, credit agreement, unfair terms

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1., (j)

The provision of the consumer mortgage agreement, establishing a bank’s right to periodically recalculate the interest rate, cannot be considered to be unfair.
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.
Can the provision of the consumer mortgage agreement, establishing a bank’s right to periodically change interest rate, be considered unfair?
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.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim.