Judikatūra

  • Lietas apraksts
    • Nacionālais identifikators: A420299513
    • Dalībvalsts: Latvija
    • Vispārpieņemtais nosaukums:link
    • Lēmuma veids: Augstākās tiesas lēmums
    • Lēmuma datums: 11/07/2014
    • Tiesa: Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments
    • Temats:
    • Prasītājs: Unknown
    • Atbildētājs: Consumer Rights Protection Centre
    • Atslēgvārdi: administrative actions, administrative authority, credit agreement, injunction
  • Direktīvas panti
    Injunctions Directive, Article 2, 1., (a)
  • Ievadpiezīme
    (1) The activities of Consumer Rights Protection Centre to protect the rights of consumers include requesting enforcement of the legitimate rights of consumers. With a view to the foregoing, the Consumer Rights Protection Centre can issue an administrative act regarding the solution of the particular dispute. This administrative act can be appealed in court.
    (2) A consumer has no rights to request the Consumer Rights Protection Centre to initiate administrative proceedings or any other activity in its competence under the Consumer Rights Protection Law against a third person in relation to infringements, which are contrary to the collective interests of consumers. In relation to an individual dispute regarding existence of unfair contract terms, under an application or complaint from the consumer, the Consumer Rights Protection Centre drafts an answer with its opinion on the contract terms in question. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre has the rights not to initiate administrative proceedings and to issue an opinion, which is not binding for the parties to the dispute. Moreover, the Consumer Rights Protection Centre has the right to abstain from expression of its opinion.
  • Fakti
    J.M. (as borrower) and AS “ABLV Bank” (third person as lender) concluded a mortgage loan agreement. For strengthening J.M.`s obligations, the plaintiff as guarantor and AS “ABLV Bank” (third person) concluded two guarantee agreements, in 2007 and 2010. In 2012 the plaintiff requested AS “ABLV Bank” to conclude an agreement on termination of the two guarantee agreements based on grounds that several clauses of the agreement are contrary to plaintiff`s consumer rights. AS “ABLV Bank” rejected the request.
    The plaintiff then requested that the defendant deem the specific clauses of the guarantee agreements in question as invalid. Consequentially the defendant did not initiate administrative proceedings, but instead provided an opinion that all clauses of the agreement, except arbitration clause, are in line with normative acts. Regarding the arbitration clause, AS “ABLV Bank” had previously agreed in writing not to use the rights under the arbitration clause inserted in consumer guarantee agreements, if the other party does not correspond to the definition of a consumer.
    The plaintiff nonetheless submitted a claim to the court to deem all clauses of guarantee agreement in question invalid.
  • Juridisks jautājums
    (1) Is an answer to a consumer`s application, expressing the opinion of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre, considered as an administrative act and thus can be appealed in court?
    (2) Do the subjective rights of a consumer allow him/her to request that the Consumer Rights Protection Centre initiates administrative proceedings for violation of the collective interests of consumers?
  • Lēmums

    (1) The court found that if the defendant receives an application from a consumer enquiring, whether any particular terms of an agreement are unfair, the defendant prepares an answer, where it can provide its opinion regarding conformity of the contract terms with the applicable laws. In such case the defendant does not initiate administrative proceedings, nor does it issue an administrative act. The defendant can express an opinion that is not binding to the parties, alternatively the defendant can abstain from expressing any opinion.
    (2) The court found that when the defendant receives a person`s application regarding unfair contract terms, the defendant initially evaluates, whether the potential violation can have an impact on collective interests of consumers. If it is established that a violation of consumer rights is non-existent, the defendant has the rights not to initiate administrative proceedings or issue administrative act. Consequentially a consumer does not have rights to request that the defendant initiates administrative proceedings for violation of the collective interests of consumers. Moreover, when a consumer submits an application to the defendant informing regarding violation of consumer rights, it is considered that the person is merely participating in public affairs.

    URL: N/A

    Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts

  • Saistītās lietas

    Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

  • Juridiskā literatūra

    Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

  • Rezultāts
    The court upheld the first instance court`s judgment that terminated court proceedings and dismissed the plaintiff`s ancillary claim.