Judgment C-567/13 12.02.2015 |
Parties |
Jurisdiction |
Formation |
Judge Rapporteur |
Advocate General |
Subject-matter |
Reference for a preliminary ruling |
Nóra Baczó and János István Vizsnyiczaiv.Raiffeisen Bank Zrt |
CJEU |
3rd Ch. |
C. Toader |
J. Kokott |
Consumer Protection —Directive 93/12/EEC |
Keywords |
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — Mortgage loan agreement — Arbitration clause — Unfairness — Action by consumer — National procedural rule — Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the action by a consumer for a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract to hear the application for a declaration of unfairness of terms in the same contract — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness |
|||||
Significant points |
|
|||||
Noteworthy |
This judgment deals with the question of whether the fact that consumers in Hungary had to bring an action for the unfairness of a contract under Directive 93/13/EEC in front of a higher court and at greater cost than would have been the case for an action dealing with domestic law constituted breach of the principle of equivalence between EU and national law or of the principle of effectiveness. In this regard, the Court of Justice reiterated the case law according to which each Member State is able to designate the courts having jurisdiction for governing actions which safeguard the rights of individuals conferred under EU law. It then clarified that the fact that actions in front of the courts designated may cost more than in other courts is not necessarily unfavourable to potential applicants if those courts possess advantages for applicants. Therefore the procedure for actions relating to EU law does not need to be exactly the same as those dealing with national law in the same area of law. As regards effectiveness, the Court outlined certain factors which the referring court should bear in mind when deciding whether the procedure in Hungary adequately protected consumer rights. |
Category Archives: Consumer protection
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Consumer, domiciled in one Member State, having purchased securities issued by a bank in another Member State from an intermediary established in a third member State
Judgment C-375/13 28.01.2015 |
Parties |
Jurisdiction |
Formation |
Judge Rapporteur |
Advocate General |
Subject-matter |
Request for a preliminary ruling |
Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc |
CJEU |
4th Chamber |
M. Safjan |
M. Szpunar |
Brussels I Regulation – Financial law and consumer protection |
Keywords |
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Consumer, domiciled in one Member State, having purchased securities issued by a bank in another Member State from an intermediary established in a third member State – Jurisdiction for actions brought against the issuer of those securities |
|||||
Significant points |
1. Under which provision of Brussels I Regulation may an applicant who, as a consumer, has acquired a bearer bond from a third party professional invoke jurisdiction for the purposes of an action brought against the issuer of the bond on the basis of the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations and liability for the prospectus?
a. Not under Article 15 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters due to the lack of an agreement between the consumer and the issuer of the bond. b. Not under Article 5 (1) (a) of Regulation No 44/2001 due to the lack of a legal obligation freely consented to by the issuer towards the applicant. c. In so far as that liability is not based on a matter relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5 (1) of the Regulation, under Article 5 (3) of Regulation No 44/2001. In this respect, the courts where the applicant is domiciled have jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the loss occurred, to hear and determine such an action, particularly when the damage alleged occurred directly in the applicant`s bank account held with a bank established within the area of jurisdiction of those courts. 2. In the context of the determination of international jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001, it is not necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence in relation to the disputed facts that are relevant both to the question of jurisdiction and to the existence of the claim. It is, however, permissible for the court hearing the case to examine its international jurisdiction in the light of all the information available to it, including, where appropriate, the allegations made by the defendant. |
|||||
Noteworthy |
|
Consumer protection – Consumer credit – Pre-contractual information duties
Judgment C-449/13 18.12.2014 |
Parties |
Jurisdiction |
Formation |
Judge Rapporteur |
Advocate General |
Subject-matter |
Reference for a preliminary ruling |
CA Consumer Finance SA V Ingrid Bakkaus, Charlien Bonato, Florian Bonato |
CJEU |
4th Ch.
|
A. Prechal |
/ |
EU Banking and Financial law – Consumer credit – Consumer protection |
Keywords |
Consumer protection – Consumer credit – Directive 2008/48/EC – Pre-contractual information duties – Obligation to check the borrower`s creditworthiness – Burden of proof – Methods of proof |
|||||
Significant points |
Pursuant to Directive 2008/48/EC lenders, when contracting with consumers, bear responsibility for the pre-contractual information requirements laid down in the Directive. They must provide consumers with a “Standard European Consumer Credit Information” form, check individually the creditworthiness of the consumer and have a duty to assist the consumer by giving a personalised explanation if need be. The purpose of this Directive is to enable the consumer to make an informed choice as to the commitment to subscribe to a loan. But there are no provision rules relating to the burden of, or the detailed rules for, providing that the lenders` obligations have been fulfilled.
|
|||||
Noteworthy |