(1) The court held that the provisions of the insurance requirements which limit the risk are not considered as aggravating or unfair provisions because their purpose is not contractual limitation or avoidance of the insurer's liability, but to determine the risk as precisely as possible or the object of insurance, i.e. the subject of the contract. Further, the court held that the term “unfair provisions” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act does not encompass legal provisions of compulsory nature which are inserted in the agreement as contractual terms (e.g. driving a vehicle without a driving licence or under the influence of alcohol over the limits provided by law).
(2) Furthermore, the court held that the national courts when interpreting rules of national law which implement certain EU directives, shall, to the extent possible, interpret these regulations in the light of the expression of certain directives and the objectives these directives want to achieve. In this regard, the concept of unfair contract terms within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act does not include contractual provisions inserted in the contract, i.e. legal provisions of compulsory nature.
URL: https://sudskapraksa.csp.vsrh.hr/decisionText?id=090216ba8064953f&q=G%C5%BEn%C5%A1-325%2F14
Cjeloviti tekst: Cjeloviti tekst