You are on page 1of 87

Ml C-76/10 Pohotovos s.r.o.

gegn Iveta Korkovsk (Beini um forrskur fr Krajsk sd v Preove) (Forrskurur neytendavernd tilskipun 93/13/EBE sanngjarnir skilmlar tilskipun 2008/48/EB tilskipun 87/102/EBE neytendalnssamningar rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar gerardmsml gerardmsrskurur vald innlends dmstls til a kanna a eigin frumkvi hvort kvenir skilmlar su sanngjarnir) Samantekt rskurarins 1. Samrming laga sanngjarnir skilmlar neytandasamningum tilskipun 93/13 umskn um fullnustu gerardmsrskurar sem kveinn var upp tivist og hefur ori endanlegur (Tilskipun rsins 93/13, 1. mgr. 6. gr.) 2. Samrming laga sanngjarnir skilmlar neytendasamningum tilskipun 93/13 sanngjarn skilmli almennir matsttir (tilskipun rsins 93/13, 3. og 4. gr.) 3. Samrming laga neytendavernd tengslum vi neytendaln tilskipun 87/102 neytendalnssamningur rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar ekki tilgreind samningnum (tilskipanir rsins 87/102, me ornum breytingum skv. tilskipun 98/7, 4. gr., og 93/13, 3. og 4. gr.) 1. Tilskipun 93/13 um sanngjarna skilmla neytendasamningum leggur skyldu innlendan dmstl sem hefur til meferar umskn um fullnustu gerardmsrskurar sem er orinn endanlegur og kveinn var upp vi tivist, fjarveru neytandans, a hann meti, jafnvel a eigin frumkvi, sanngirni eirra viurlaga sem finna m lnssamningi sem lnveitandi gerir vi neytanda, hafi eim viurlgum veri beitt gerardmsrskurinum, egar hann br yfir nausynlegum upplsingum um lagalega stu og mlsatvik essu skyni og egar, samrmi vi landsbundnar mlsmeferarreglur, slkt mat getur fari fram svipari mlsmefer samkvmt landslgum. ljsi elis og mikilvgis eirra almannahagsmuna sem liggja a baki verndinni sem neytendum er veitt me tilskipun 93/13, verur a lta 6. gr. tilskipunarinnar sem kvi sem jafngildir innlendum reglum sem hafa stu allsherjarreglu innan hins innlenda rttarkerfis. (sj mgr. 50, 54, agerartt 1) 2. Hva varar spurninguna um hvort tiltekinn skilmli samningi s sanngjarn eur ei, kveur 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 um sanngjarna skilmla neytendasamningum um a vi mtun svarsins veri a taka tillit til elis vrunnar ea jnustunnar sem samningurinn var gerur um og me vsan til allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins eim tma sem hann var gerur. v sambandi verur einnig a taka tillit til afleiinga skilmlans samkvmt lgum sem um samninginn gilda, sem felur sr athugun hinu innlenda rttarkerfi. Af essu leiir a grundvelli lgsgu sinnar samkvmt 267. gr. sttmlans um starfshtti Evrpusambandsins til a tlka lg Sambandsins, getur Dmstllinn tlka almenn vimi sem notu eru lggjf Sambandsins til a skilgreina hugtaki sanngjarnir skilmlar. Hins vegar ber honum ekki a rskura um beitingu essara almennu skilyra tiltekinn skilmla, sem verur a meta ljsi srstakra astna mlsins sem um rir. a er v hlutverk innlenda dmstlsins sem um rir a kvara hvort telja beri skilmla lnssamningi sem skyldar neytandann a greia hflega ha upph btur, ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins, sanngjarnan skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. Ef s er raunin, er a hlutverk ess dmstls a gera grein fyrir llum afleiingum sem etta hefur fr me sr samkvmt landslgum, v skyni a tryggja a neytandinn s ekki bundinn af eim skilmla. S dmstll arf einnig, samrmi vi 1. mgr. 6. gr. eirrar tilskipunar, a kanna hvort samningurinn geti haldi gildi snu a ru leyti n ess sanngjarna skilmla. (sj mgr. 59-61, 63, agerartt 2) 3. a a rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar s ekki nefnd neytendalnssamningi, en rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar telst til nausynlegra upplsinga skilningi tilskipunar 87/102 um samrmingu lgum og stjrnsslufyrirmlum aildarrkjanna varandi neytendaln, eins og henni var breytt me tilskipun 98/7, getur ri rslitum mati

innlends dmstls v hvort skilmli neytendalnssamnings um kostna af lntkunni ar sem slkra upplsinga er ekki geti, s oraur skru og skiljanlegu mli skilningi 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 um sanngjarna skilmla neytendasamningum. Ef s er ekki raunin hefur dmstllinn vald til a meta, a eigin frumkvi, hvort, ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins, a a rlegrar hlutfallstlu kostnaar er ekki geti skilmla samningsins um kostna af lntkunni stuli a v a skilmlinn s eli snu sanngjarn skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. rtt fyrir heimildina sem veitt er til a meta samninginn ljsi tilskipunar 93/13 ber hins vegar a tlka tilskipun 87/102 annig a hn heimili innlendum dmstlum a beita a eigin frumkvi kvunum sem leia 4. gr. sarnefndu tilskipunarinnar landslg og annig a hn kvei um a misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar neytendalnssamningi merki a lni sem veitt er teljist vera vaxtalaust og gjaldfrjlst. (sj mgr. 77, agerartt 3)

RSKURUR DMSTLSINS (ttunda deild) 16. nvember 2010 (*) (Forrskurur neytendavernd tilskipun 93/13/EBE sanngjarnir skilmlar tilskipun 2008/48/EB tilskipun 87/102/EBE neytendalnssamningar rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar gerardmsml gerardmsrskurur vald innlends dmstls til a kanna a eigin frumkvi hvort kvenir skilmlar su sanngjarnir) mli C76/10, BEINI um forrskur skv. 267. gr. sttmlans um starfshtti Evrpusambandsins fr Krajsk sd v Preove (Slvaka), ger me rskuri fr 19. janar 2010, mttekin af Dmstlnum ann 9. febrar 2010, mli Pohotovos s. r. o. gegn Iveta Korkovsk, DMSTLLINN (ttunda deild) skipaur L. Bay Larsen, fyrir hnd forseta ttundu deildar, C. Toader (framsgumanni) og A. Prechal, dmurum, Lgsgumaur: N. Jskinen, Dmritari: A. Calot Escobar, Dmstllinn, sem formar a tilkynna kvrun sna me rkstuddum rskuri skv. fyrsta undirli 3. mgr. 104. mlsmeferarreglna sinna, eftir a hafa hltt ml lgsgumanns, kveur upp eftirfarandi rskur 1 Beini essi um forrskur ltur a tlkun tilskipun rsins 93/13/EBE fr 5. aprl 1993 um sanngjarna skilmla neytendasamningum (Stjt. EB 1993 L 95, bls. 29), lesin samhengi vi reglur Evrpusambandsins um neytendalnssamninga. 2 Beinin var lg fram tengslum vi dmsml milli Pohotovos s.r.o. (Pohotovos) og fr Korkovsk varandi fullnustu gerardmsrskurar ar sem henni var gert, samkvmt kvum lnssamnings a fjrh SKK 20.000 (EUR 663,88) sem essir ailar geru me sr, a greia flaginu SKK 48.820 (EUR 1.620,53) auk drttarvaxta og kostnaar.

Lagaumhverfi Lggjf Evrpusambandsins Tilskipun 87/102/EBE 3 Tuttugasta og fimmta forsenda inngangsora tilskipunar rsins 87/102/EBE fr 22. desember 1986 um samrmingu lgum og stjrnsslufyrirmlum aildarrkjanna varandi neytendaln (Stjt. EB 1987 L 42, bls. 48), eins og henni var breytt me tilskipun Evrpuingsins og rsins 98/7/EB fr 16. febrar 1998 (Stjt. EB 1998 L 101, bls. 17, tilskipun 87/102) hljar svo: ar e essi tilskipun kveur um vissa samrmingu laga, reglugera og stjrnsslufyrirmla aildarrkjanna varandi neytendaln og visst stig neytendaverndar, skal ekki komi veg fyrir a aildarrkin haldi gildi ea taki upp strangari rstafanir til verndar neytendum, me tilhlilegu tilliti til skuldbindinga sinna samkvmt sttmlanum. 4 1. 2. 1. gr. tilskipunar 87/102 segir: Tilskipun essi vi um lnssamninga. essari tilskipun er merking eftirfarandi hugtaka sem hr segir:

a) neytandi merkir einstaklingur sem, viskiptum sem essi tilskipun tekur til, starfar a markmium sem eru utan viskipta hans ea atvinnustarfsemi, b) lnveitandi merkir einstaklingur ea lgaili sem veitir ln tengslum vi viskipti sn, rekstur ea atvinnustarfsemi, ea hpur slkra aila, c) lnssamningur merkir samningur ar sem lnveitandi veitir ea lofar a veita neytanda ln formi greislufrests, lns ea sambrilegrar fjrhagslegrar fyrirgreislu, d) heildarlntkukostnaur neytanda merkir allur kostnaur, . m. vextir og nnur gjld, sem neytandinn arf a greia fyrir lni, e) rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar merkir heildarlntkukostnaur neytanda, tilgreindur sem rleg hlutfallstala fjrhar hins veitta lns og reiknaur samrmi vi gr. 1a, 5 gr. 1a eirrar tilskipunar segir:

1. a) rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar, sem rsgrundvelli jafngildir nviri allra nverandi og sari skuldbindinga (ln, endurgreislur og kostnaur), sem lnveitandi og neytandi samykkja, skal reiknu samkvmt reiknilkaninu sem er sett fram II. viauka. b) Fjgur dmi um afer vi treikning eru snd III. viauka, me snidmum.

2. Til a reikna rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar skal kvara heildarlntkukostna neytanda eins og hann er skilgreindur d-li 2. mgr. 1. gr., a undanskildum eftirfarandi gjldum: i. gjld sem lntaka ber a greia vegna ess a hann stendur ekki vi einhverjar skuldbindingar snar samkvmt lnssamningnum, iii. gjld fyrir frslu fjrmuna og gjld fyrir a halda reikning sem tlaur er til a taka vi greislum vegna endurgreislu lnsins, greisla vaxta og annarra gjalda nema ar sem neytandinn hefur ekki hfilegt valfrelsi mlinu og ar sem slk gjld eru elilega h; etta kvi ekki vi um gjld fyrir innheimtu slkra endurgreislna ea greislna, hvort sem r eru inntar af hendi reiuf ea annan htt, 4. a) rleg hlutfallstala kostnaur skal reiknu eim tma sem lnssamningurinn er gerur, me fyrirvara um kvi 3. gr. varandi auglsingar og srtilbo. b) Vi treikning rlegri hlutfallstlu kostnaar skal ganga t fr eirri forsendu a lnssamningurinn haldist gildi ann tma sem sami er um og a lnveitandinn og neytandinn muni rkja skyldur snar samkvmt eim skilmlum og dagsetningum sem sami er um. 6. egar um er a ra lnssamninga sem hafa a geyma kvi sem heimila frvik fr vxtum ea fjrh annarra gjalda sem innifalin eru rlegri hlutfallstlu kostnaar en ekki er hgt a meta egar treikningur fer fram, skal ganga t fr eirri forsendu vi treikning rlegrar hlutfallstlu kostnaar a vextir og nnur gjld su fastur kostnaur og gildi ar til lnssamningurinn fellur r gildi.

6 1. 2. a) b) 4. gr. tilskipunar 87/102 segir: Lnssamningar skulu gerir skriflega. Neytandinn skal f afrit af slkum skriflegum samningi. skriflega samningnum skal eftirfarandi koma fram: kvi er tilgreinir rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar, kvi er tilgreinir vi hvaa astur megi breyta rlegri hlutfallstlu kostnaar,

c) kvi er tilgreinir fjrh, fjlda og tni ea dagsetningar greislna sem neytandinn arf a inna af hendi til a endurgreia lni, sem og greislur vegna vaxta og annarra gjalda. Heildarfjrh essara greislna skal einnig koma fram eftir v sem unnt er, d) kvi er tilgreinir kostnaarliina sem um getur gr. 1a, 2. mgr., a undanskildum tgjldum sem tengjast broti gegn samningsbundnum skuldbindingum sem ekki voru talin me treikningi rlegrar hlutfallstlu kostnaar en sem neytandinn arf a greia vi tilteknar kringumstur, samt tilgreiningu v hverjar slkar kringumstur eru. eim tilvikum ar sem nkvm fjrh essara lia er ekkt ber a tilgreina fjrh. S svo ekki skal, eftir v sem unnt er, tilgreina anna hvort treikningsafer ea eins nkvmt mat og hgt er. v tilviki a ekki s unnt a gefa yfirlsingu um rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar, skal veita neytandanum ngjanlegar upplsingar skriflega samningnum. Upplsingar essar skulu a.m.k. taka til ess sem kvei er um rum undirli 1. mgr. 6. gr. 7 1. og 2. mgr. 6. gr. tilskipunar 87/102 segir:

1. rtt fyrir undanfellingu sem kvei er um e-li 1. mgr. 2. gr., egar um er a ra samkomulag milli lnastofnunar ea fjrmlastofnunar og neytanda um lnveitingu formi heimildar til fyrirframttektar af hlaupareikningi, ekki greislukortareikningi, skal neytanda ger grein fyrir v ea ur en gengi er fr samningnum: hvaa takmrk su lnsupphinni, s um slkt a ra,

hverjir su rsvextir og hvaa gjld falli lni fr eim tma er gengi er fr samningnum svo og vi hvaa skilyri megi breyta eim, me hvaa htti megi segja samningnum upp.

essar upplsingar skulu stafestar skriflega. 2. Enn fremur skal neytanda strax tilkynnt um allar breytingar rsvxtum ea vieigandi gjldum sem vera samningstmanum. r upplsingar m veita reikningsyfirliti ea hvaa htt annan sem aildarrkin taka gild. 8 14. gr. eirrar tilskipunar segir:

1. Aildarrki skulu sj til ess a ekki s lnssamningum viki fr kvum landslaga um framkvmd tilskipunar essarar ea sem samsvara henni, neytanda hag. 2. Aildarrki skulu enn fremur sj til ess a kvi samninga su ekki sett fram ann htt a fari s kringum kvi er au samykkja vi framkvmd tilskipunar essarar, einkum me v a dreifa lninu marga samninga. 9 15. gr. eirrar tilskipunar segir:

Tilskipun essi skal ekki koma veg fyrir a aildarrki vihaldi ea taki upp strangari kvi til a vernda neytendur er samrmist skuldbindingum eirra samkvmt sttmlanum. Tilskipun 2008/48/EB 10 Tilskipun Evrpuingsins og rsins 2008/48/EB fr 23. aprl 2008 um lnasamninga fyrir neytendur og um niurfellingu tilskipunar rsins 87/102/EBE (Stjt. EB 2008 L 133, bls. 66) leggur almenna skyldu

lnveitanda um a veita neytanda, ur en samningur er gerur og lnssamningnum sjlfum, kvenar upplsingar, .m.t. rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar. I. viauka vi tilskipun er sett fram samrmd afer vi treikning rlegrar hlutfallstlu kostnaar. 11 samrmi vi 27. og 29. gr. tilskipunar 2008/48 rann lgleiingartmabil eirrar tilskipunar t ann 12. ma 2010, en eim degi var tilskipun 87/102 felld r gildi. Tilskipun 93/13 12 3. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 segir:

1. Samningsskilmli sem hefur ekki veri sami um srstaklega telst sanngjarn ef hann, rtt fyrir skilyri um ga tr, veldur umtalsveru jafnvgi rttinda og skyldna samningsaila samkvmt samningnum, neytanda til tjns. 2. Ekki telst hafa veri sami srstaklega um samningsskilmla ef hann hefur veri saminn fyrirfram og neytandi v ekki haft tkifri til a hafa hrif efni skilmlans, einkum egar um er ra fastoraa staalsamninga. sami hafi veri srstaklega um einstk atrii samningsskilmla ea einn tiltekinn samningsskilmla, gildir essi grein fram um afganginn af samningnum ef heildarmat samningnum snir a hann er rtt fyrir a fastoraur staalsamningur. Ef seljandi ea veitandi heldur v fram a sami hafi veri srstaklega um staalskilmla er snnunarbyrin hans. 3. 13 viaukanum er skr, leibeinandi en ekki tmandi, yfir samningsskilmla sem teljast sanngjarnir. 4. gr. eirrar tilskipunar segir:

1. Me fyrirvara um 7. gr. skal vi mat v hvort samningsskilmli er sanngjarn taka tillit til ess um hvers konar vrur ea jnustu samningurinn er og hafa hlisjn af llum astum eim tma sem samningurinn er gerur og llum rum skilmlum samningsins ea annars samnings sem hann hangir saman vi. 2. Mati v hvort samningsskilmlar su sanngjarnir nr hvorki til skilgreiningar aalefni samningsins n til ess hvort veri og endurgjaldi s fullngjandi me tilliti til jnustunnar ea vrunnar, sem veitt er stainn, a svo miklu leyti sem essir skilmlar eru orair skru og skiljanlegu mli. 14 5. gr. eirrar tilskipunar segir:

samningum ar sem allir ea tilteknir skilmlar sem neytanda eru bonir eru skriflegir skulu skilmlarnir vallt orair skru og skiljanlegu mli. vafamlum um merkingu skilmla gildir s tlkun sem neytandanum kemur best. essi tlkunarregla gildir ekki tengslum vi mlsmefer samkvmt 2. mgr. 7. gr. 15 1. mgr. 6. gr. segir a [a]ildarrkin skulu mla svo fyrir um a sanngjarnir skilmlar samningi seljanda ea veitanda vi neytanda su ekki samkvmt landslgum eirra bindandi fyrir neytandann og a samningurinn veri fram bindandi fyrir samningsaila ef hann getur haldi gildi snu a ru leyti n sanngjrnu skilmlanna. 16 7. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 segir:

1. Aildarrkin skulu tryggja, gu neytenda og samkeppnisaila, a til su fullngjandi og rangursrkar leiir til a hindra framhaldandi notkun sanngjarnra skilmla samningum seljenda ea veitenda vi neytendur. 2. Meal leianna sem um getur 1. mgr. skulu vera kvi sem einstaklingar ea samtk, sem samkvmt landslgum hafa lgmta hagsmuni af v a vernda neytendur, geta ntt sr til agera landslgum samkvmt fyrir dmstlum ea ar til brum stjrnsslustofnunum til a f r v skori hvort skilmlar, sem eru tlair til almennrar notkunar, su sanngjarnir, og geti annig beitt vieigandi og rangursrkum leium til a hindra framhaldandi notkun slkra skilmla. 3. A teknu tilliti til landslaga m beita eim lagarrum sem um getur 2. mgr. anna hvort srstaklega ea sameiginlega gegn hpi seljenda ea veitenda r smu atvinnugrein ea samtkum eirra sem nota ea rleggja notkun smu almennu samningsskilmlanna ea lkra skilmla. 17 8. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 segir a [a]ildarrkin geta samykkt ea lti gilda fram eins strng kvi og samrmast sttmlanum gildissvii essarar tilskipunar til a tryggja neytendum sem flugasta vernd.

18 e-li 1. tlul. viauka vi tilskipun, a v er varar skilmla sem um getur 3. mgr. 3. gr. tilskipunarinnar, er viki a skilmlum sem hafa a markmii ea au hrif ... (e) a krefjast tilhlilegra hrra bta af neytanda sem stendur ekki vi skuldbindingar snar. Slvaksku reglurnar 19 52. gr. slvakskra einkamlalaga segir:

(1) Samningur gerur vi neytanda merkir einhvern samning, hvaa lagalegu formi sem er, sem gerur er milli veitanda og neytanda. 2) Skilmlum samnings sem gerur er vi neytanda og llum rum kvum sem gilda um rttarsamband er vara neytanda skal vallt beita gu neytandans sem er aili a samningnum. Srhvert srstakt samkomulag ea samningur sem a efni til snigengur essi kvi ea hefur a a markmii skal vera gildur. ... 4) Neytandi merkir einstakling sem, vi ger og framfylgd neytandasamnings, starfar a markmium sem eru utan viskipta hans ea atvinnustarfsemi. 20 53. gr. smu laga segir:

(1) Samningur sem gerur er vi neytanda m ekki innihalda kvi sem valda umtalsveru jafnvgi rttindum og skyldum aila neytandanum til tjns (sanngjarn skilmli). Ekki skal telja samningsskilmla, sem varar meginandlag viskiptanna ea a hversu vieigandi veri er, sanngjarnan ef skilmlinn er nkvmlega oraur skru og skiljanlegu mli ea ef srstaklega hefur veri sami um sanngjarna skilmlann. 4) k) leggja viurlg hvern ann neytanda sem stendur ekki vi skuldbindingar snar og skylda hann til greislu elilega hrra bta, 5) 21 segir: sanngjarnir skilmlar samnings sem gerur er vi neytanda skulu vera gildir. 4. gr. laga nr. 258/2001 um neytendaln, eins og hn tti vi degi mlsatvika vi aalmlsmeferina, sanngjarnir skilmlar samnings sem gerur er vi neytanda innihalda einkum kvi sem:

Neytendalnssamningar 1) 2) j) rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar og allan kostna lnsins sem neytandinn skal bera, reikna grundvelli gagna sem eru rtt eim degi sem samningurinn er gerur, ... Ef neytendalnssamningurinn inniheldur ekki au atrii sem koma fram 2. mgr. ... (j), skal lni sem veitt er teljast vaxtalaust og gjaldfrjlst. 22 45. gr. laga nr. 244/2002 um mlsmefer fyrir gerardmi, eins og hn tti vi degi mlsatvika vi aalmlsmeferina, segir: (1) Dmstll sem br er til a taka til meferar fullnustuml samkvmt srlgum skal vi umskn fr ailanum sem fyrirmli um fullnustu gerardmsrskurar beinist a, htta mefer fullnustumlsins. ... Neytendalnssamning skal semja skriflega, annars skal hann vera gildur, og skal neytandinn f eintak. Neytendalnssamningur skal innihalda, auk almennra atria,

c) ef gerardmsrskururinn skuldbindur aila a gerardmsmli til a gera eitthva sem er mgulegt samkvmt hlutlgu mati, lglegt ea andsttt grundvallarsigi. 2) Dmstll sem br er til a taka til meferar fullnustuml skal stva fullnustu gerardmsrskurar ea fullnustuml a eigin frumkvi ef hann kemur auga misfellur gerardmsmlsmeferinni skv. b- ea cli 1. mgr. greiningsefni aalmlsmeferarinnar og spurningarnar sem vsa var til forrskurar 23 ann 26. febrar 2008 geri fr Korkovsk, sem er ftlu og iggur rorkulfeyri a fjrh u..b. EUR 370 mnui, lnssamning vi Pohotovos, en almennir skilmlar hans voru eftirfarandi. Upphin sem tekin var a lni var SKK 20.000 (EUR 663,88) og knanir er tengdust lninu nmu SKK 19.120 (EUR 634,67). Fr Korkovsk urfti a endurgreia hfustlinn og kostnainn einu ri me mnaarlegum afborgunum a fjrh SKK 3.260 (EUR 108,21). Innlendi dmstllinn komst a eirri niurstu a rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar lnsins vri v 95,6%, en hn var ekki nefnd sem slk almennum skilmlum lna sem Pohotovos veitti n lnssamningnum sem gerur var. 24 Samkvmt 4. gr. essara almennu skilmla verur ll skuldin tafarlaust gjaldkrf ef skuldari stendur ekki skilum, a hluta ea llu leyti, me tvr afborganir r. Enn fremur kveur 6. gr. essara almennu skilmla um a slku tilviki skuli greia daglega drttarvexti sem nema 0,25% af gjaldfllnu upphinni fr eim degi sem skuldin gjaldfellur og ar til hn er ll greidd. Viurlgin samsvara v rlegri vaxtaprsentu upp 91,25%. v sambandi bendir innlendi dmstllinn a samkvmt slvakskum lgum megi viurlg, sem mlt er fyrir um formi drttarvaxta einkamlum, ekki vera hrri en sem nemur grunnvxtum Selabanka Evrpu, sem n eru 1%, a vibttum tta prsentustigum, ea samtals 9%. 25 17. gr. smu almennu skilmla er kvei um a r deilumlum sem rsa tengslum vi lnssamning skuli anna hvort leyst fyrir Stly rozhodcovsk Sud Bratislava (gerardmur), ea ar til brum innlendum dmstl sem samningsailinn sem hfar mli velur. Skv. 19. gr. essara almennu skilmla lta enn fremur ll tengsl milli lnveitanda og lntaka kvum viskiptalaga en ekki einkamlalaga. Innlendi dmstllinn btir v vi a samningurinn sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni hafi veitt lgmanni mlflutningsumbo til a vera mlsvari fr Korkovsk. 26 ar e fr Korkovsk greiddi ekki tvr mnaarlegar afborganir r hfai Pohotovos ml ann 9. oktber 2008 fyrir Stly rozhodcovsk Sud, sem ann 3. nvember 2008 kva upp gerardmsrskur ar sem vikomandi aila var gert a greia flaginu SKK 48.820 (EUR 1.620,53) auk drttarvaxta a fjrh SKK 39.120 (EUR 1.298,55) og kostnaar a fjrh SKK 9.928 (EUR 329,55). rskururinn var endanlegur 15. desember 2008 og fullnustuhfur 18. desember 2008. 27 grundvelli ess rskurar lagi fgetafulltri ann 9. mars 2009 fram afararbeini hj Okresn Sud Star ubova (hrasdminum Star ubova) til innheimtu EUR 3.467. Me rskuri ann 31. jl 2009 stvai dmstllinn fullnustumli eirri forsendu a a bryti bga vi almennt siferi a v er varar kostna lagalegs fyrirsvarsmanns umskjanda fullnustumli, sem var hrri en EUR 94,61, og a v er varar innheimtu drttarvaxta sem nmu 0,25% dag af upphinni EUR 1.298,52 fr 21. jl 2008 ar til skuldin fengist greidd a fullu. 28 ann 26. gst 2009 frjai Pohotovos eim rskuri til Krajsk Sud v Preove (svisdmsins Preov). Til stunings fr Korkovsk var Asocicia spotrebiteskch subjektov Slovenska (Samtk neytendaflaga Slvaku, Asocicia) veitt leyfi til a leggja fram greinarger ar sem au upplstu ann dmstl srstaklega um ann mikla fjlda fullnustumla sem Pohotovos hafi hfa Slvaku. Asocicia telur a almennir skilmlar lns sem umrtt flag veitir innihaldi sanngjarna skilmla og jafngildi sanngjrnum viskiptahttum og lagi til vi innlenda dmstlinn a hann vsai mlinu til Dmstls Evrpusambandsins skv. 267 gr. sttmlans um starfshtti Evrpusambandsins. 29 Enn fremur kva Krajsk Sud v Preove, me vsan til ess a greinarger Asocicia innihldi stareyndir sem dmstlnum bri a kanna a eigin frumkvi, a fresta mlsmeferinni og vsa eftirfarandi spurningum til Dmstls Evrpusambandsins til forrskurar: 1. a) Eru upplsingar um heildarkostna neytanda prsentum (rleg hlutfallstala) svo mikilvgar a misbrestur a tilgreina hann samningi geti ori til ess a kostnaur neytendalns veri gagnsr og ekki ngilega skr og skiljanlegur? b) Er mgulegt, samkvmt neytendaverndarrammanum sem kvei er um tilskipun rsins 93/13 ..., a lta veri sem sanngjarnan skilmla lnssamningi grundvelli fullngjandi gagnsi og skrleika ef samningurinn inniheldur ekki upplsingar um heildarkostna neytendalns prsentum og veri er eingngu gefi upp sem fjrh sem samanstendur af msum gjldum sem tilgreind eru bi samningnum og almennum skilmlum?

2. a) Ber a tlka tilskipun rsins 93/13 ... annig a hn merki a innlendum dmstl, sem hefur til meferar beini um fullnustu endanlegs gerardmsrskurar sem kveinn var upp n tttku neytandans, beri a eigin frumkvi, ef hann br yfir nausynlegum upplsingum um lagalega stu og mlsatvik v skyni, a meta sanngirni viurlaga sem tilgreind eru lnssamningi sem lnveitandi hefur gert vi neytanda, ef innlendar mlsmeferarreglur leyfa a slkt mat fari fram svipari mlsmefer samkvmt landslgum? b) Ef viurlg gegn broti skuldbindingum neytandans eru hfleg, er a hlutverk essa dmstls a draga nausynlegar lyktanir sem af v leia samkvmt landslgum til a tryggja a neytandinn veri ekki bundinn af eim viurlgum? c) Geta viurlg upp 0,25% dag af tistandandi lni, .e. 91,25% ri, talist sanngjarn skilmli eim forsendum a au su hfleg? 3. Vi beitingu laga ESB (tilskipun rsins 93/13 ..., tilskipun 2008/48 ... sem fellir r gildi tilskipun 87/102 ...) er neytendaverndarramminn ess elis tengslum vi neytendalnssamninga a ef samningur snigengur reglur sem tla er a vernda neytendur svii neytendalna og ef, samkvmt slkum samningi, stt er um fullnustu gerardmsrskurar, getur dmstllinn stva fullnustumlsmeferina ea leyft fullnustumlsmefer kostna lnveitanda aeins upp a tistandandi fjrh lnsins sem veitt hafi veri, ef, samkvmt innlendum reglum, slkt mat gerardmsrskuri er tkt og dmstllinn br yfir nausynlegum upplsingum um lagalega stu mla og mlsatvik? Spurningarnar sem lagar voru fram 30 Samkvmt fyrstu undirmlsgrein 3. mgr. 104. gr. mlsmeferareglnanna getur Dmstllinn, ef greilega m leia svari vi spurningu sem vsa hefur veri til hans til forrskurar af nverandi dmaframkvmd, tilkynnt kvrun sna hvenr sem er me rkstuddum rskuri eftir a hafa hltt ml lgsgumanns. 31 Dmstllinn telur etta eiga vi essu mli.

Agangshfi 32 Pohotovos heldur v fram skriflegum athugasemdum snum, fyrsta lagi, a veita megi svr vi sumum spurningunum sem lagar voru fram me rskuri sem kveinn er upp grundvelli 3. mgr. 104. gr. mlsmeferarreglnanna. ru lagi byggir a v, sr lagi, a fyrsta og rija spurningin vari ekki tlkun laga Evrpusambandsins og a almennt hafi innlendi dmstllinn ekki uppfyllt skyldu sem honum hvlir a svara spurningum sem vara landslg ur en hann vsar spurningum til Dmstlsins samkvmt fyrirkomulaginu sem kvei er um 267. gr. sttmlans um starfshtti Evrpusambandsins. 33 v sambandi ngir a benda a, fyrsta lagi, a geti veri hentugt vissum tilvikum a leyst hafi veri r spurningum sem vara eingngu landslg egar mli er vsa til Dmstlsins, er innlendum dmstlum veitt vtkt kvrunarvald til a vsa mlum til Dmstlsins ef eir telja a ml sem fyrir eim liggur veki upp spurningar sem vara tlkun kva laga Evrpusambandsins, ea mat gildi eirra, sem kalli kvrun af eirra hlfu (sameinu ml C-188/10 og C-189/10 Melki og Abdeli [2010] ECR I-0000, 41. mgr. og dmaframkvmdin sem vitna var til). 34 Varandi spurningarnar sem innlendi dmstllinn lagi fram verur a telja a r vari tlkun laga Evrpusambandsins. 35 ar af leiandi verur Dmstllinn a svara spurningunum sem Krajsk Sud v Preove beindi til hans.

nnur spurning, a-liur 36 a-li annarrar spurningarinnar, sem arf a skoa fyrst, spyr innlendi dmstllinn hvort innlendum dmstl, sem hefur til meferar beini um fullnustu endanlegs gerardmsrskurar sem kveinn var upp tivist og n tttku neytandans, beri a eigin frumkvi, samkvmt tilskipun 93/13, ef hann br yfir nausynlegum upplsingum um lagalega stu og mlsatvik v skyni, a meta sanngirni viurlaga sem tilgreind eru lnssamningi sem lnveitandi hefur gert vi neytanda, ar sem eim viurlgum hefur veri beitt gerardmsrskurinum, ef innlendar mlsmeferarreglur leyfa a slkt mat fari fram svipari mlsmefer samkvmt landslgum? 37 Samkvmt vitekinni dmaframkvmd byggist verndarkerfi sem tilskipun 93/13 innleiddi eirri hugmynd a neytandinn s veikri stu gagnvart seljanda ea veitanda a v er varar bi samningsstyrk og ekkingarstig. etta leiir til ess a neytandinn samykkir skilmla sem seljandi ea veitandi hefur sami fyrirfram n ess a geta haft hrif efni eirra (Sameinu ml C-240/98 til C-244/98 Ocano Grupo Editorial og Salvat Editores [2000] I-4941, 25. mgr., og ml C-168/05 Mostaza Claro [2006] ECR I-10421, 25. mgr.).

38 Hva snertir slka veikari stu kveur 1. mgr. 6. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 um a sanngjarnir skilmlar skuli ekki vera bindandi fyrir neytandann. Eins og ljst er af dmaframkvmd, er etta frvkjanlegt kvi sem miar a v a skipta hinu formlega jafnvgi sem samningurinn kemur milli rttinda og skyldna samningsaila t fyrir virkt jafnvgi sem kemur aftur jafnri milli eirra (Mostaza Claro, sem vsa er til a ofan, 36. mgr., og ml C-243/08 Pannon GSM [2009] ECR I 4713, 25. mgr.). 39 v skyni a tryggja vernd sem tilskipun 93/13 miar a hefur Dmstllinn einnig margoft teki fram a jafnvgi sem rkir milli neytanda og seljanda ea veitanda veri aeins leirtt me jkvri ager sem er h eiginlegum ailum samningsins (Ocano Grupo Editorial og Salvat Editores, sj tilvitnun a ofan, 27. mgr.; Mostaza Claro, sem vsa er til a ofan, 26. mgr.; og ml C-40/08 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones [2009] ECR I 9579, 31. mgr.). 40 a er ljsi essara meginreglna sem Dmstllinn hefur tali a innlenda dmstlnum beri a meta a eigin frumkvi hvort samningsskilmli s sanngjarn (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, sem vsa er til a ofan, 32. mgr.). 41 Lta ber svo a vald dmstls til a kvara a eigin frumkvi hvort skilmli s sanngjarn jafngildi vieigandi rri bi til a n fram niurstu sem 6. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 stefnir a, .e. a koma veg fyrir a einstakur neytandi s bundinn af sanngjrnum skilmla, og til a stula a v a markmi 7. gr. nist, ar sem slk athugun af hlfu dmstls getur haft varnaarhrif og stula a v a fyrirbyggja a seljendur setji sanngjarna skilmla samninga vi neytendur (ml C-473/00 Cofidis [2002] ECR I-10875, 32. mgr., og Mostaza Claro, sem vsa er til a ofan, 27. mgr.). 42 etta vald innlends dmstls hefur veri tali nausynlegt til a tryggja a neytandinn njti skilvirkrar verndar, einkum ljsi eirrar raunverulegu httu a honum s kunnugt um rttindi sn ea eigi erfileikum me a framfylgja eim (Cofidis, sem vsa er til a ofan, 33. mgr., og Mostaza Claro, sem vsa er til a ofan, 28. mgr.). 43 Verndin sem tilskipunin veitir neytendum nr annig til tilvika ar sem neytandi, sem hefur gert samning vi seljanda ea veitanda sem inniheldur sanngjarnan skilmla, ltur gert a vekja athygli sanngjrnu eli skilmlans, hvort heldur er vegna ess a honum er kunnugt um rttindi sn ea vegna ess a honum er aftra fr v a framfylgja eim vegna kostnaar sem dmsml fli sr (Cofidis, sem vsa er til a ofan, 34. mgr.). 44 Slk vernd enn meiri rtt sr ef, eins og innlendi dmstllinn virist telja beini sinni um forrskur, lnssamningurinn sem um er deilt aalmlsmeferinni felur sr mlflutningsumbo gu lgmanns sem lnveitandi velur sem a tala mli neytandans ea skuldarans, sem getur ekki vali annan lgmann sem mlsvara sinn nema me v a greia samningsbundin viurlg sem svara til 15% lnsuppharinnar. 45 a er rtt a samkvmt dmaframkvmd Dmstlsins er innlendum dmstl ekki skylt skv. lgum Evrpusambandsins a beita ekki innlendum mlsmeferarreglum sem gera kvrun bor vi gerardmsrskur endanlega, jafnvel tt a geri kleift a bta r broti gegn kvum laga Evrpusambandsins, n tillits til elis ess, sem leiddi af umrddri kvrunin (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, sem vsa er til a ofan, 37. mgr.) 46 Raunar hefur Dmstllinn egar bent a til ess a tryggja stugleika laga og rttarsambanda, sem og rugga rttarvrslu, er mikilvgt a ekki veri fram hgt a draga dmsniurstur efa sem hafa ori endanlegar eftir a ll frjunarrri hafa veri ntt ea eftir a fari hefur veri fram r eim tmamrkum sem gefin voru til a nta au rttindi (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, sem vsa er til a ofan, 36. mgr., og dmaframkvmdin sem vitna er til). 47 fjarveru Evrpusambandslaga essu svii ber hi innlenda rttarkerfi annig byrg reglum sem innleia meginregluna um endanlegan rskur (res judicata), samrmi vi meginregluna um mlsmeferarsjlfsti aildarrkjanna. r reglur mega hins vegar ekki vera hagstari en r sem gilda um samsvarandi innlendar agerir (meginreglan um jafngildi), n heldur mega r vera ess elis a a s reynd gert mgulegt ea hflega erfitt a nta sr rttindin sem lg Evrpusambandsins veita (meginreglan um skilvirkni) (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, sem vsa er til a ofan, 38. mgr.). 48 samrmi vi meginregluna um jafngildi mega skilyrin sem landslg leggja , sem heimila dmstlum a beita reglu laga Evrpusambandsins a eigin frumkvi, ekki vera hagstari en au sem gilda um beitingu essara dmstla a eigin frumkvi reglum landslaga a smu rtth (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, sem vsa er til a ofan, 49. mgr., og dmaframkvmdina sem vitna er til). 49 v sambandi er rtt a benda a 1. mgr. 6. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 er frvkjanlegt kvi. Einnig ber a athuga a samkvmt dmaframkvmd Dmstlsins telst s tilskipun heild sinni rstfun sem er nausynleg til a au verkefni sem Evrpusambandinu eru falin megi heppnast og, sr lagi, til a bta lfskjr og lfsgi

llum lndum Evrpusambandsins (Mostaza Claro, sem vsa er til a ofan, 37. mgr., og Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, sem vsa er til a ofan, 51. mgr.). 50 Samkvmt v, ljsi elis og mikilvgis eirra almannahagsmuna sem liggja a baki verndinni sem neytendum er veitt me tilskipun 93/13, verur a lta 6. gr. tilskipunarinnar sem kvi a smu rtth og innlendar reglur sem hafa stu allsherjarreglu innan hins innlenda rttarkerfis (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, 52. mgr.). 51 Af essu leiir srstaklega, a v leyti sem innlenda dmstlnum sem hefur til meferar ml sem varar fullnustu endanlegs gerardmsrskurar ber, samrmi vi innlendar mlsmeferarreglur, a meta a eigin frumkvi hvort kvi gerardmsrskurar stangist vi innlenda allsherjarreglu, a hann verur einnig a meta a eigin frumkvi hvort kvi s sanngjarnt ljsi 6. gr. tilskipunarinnar, ef hann br yfir vitneskju um lagalegu tti og mlsatvik sem a verkefni theimtir (Pannon GSM, sem vsa er til a ofan, 32. mgr., og Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, sem vsa er til a ofan, 53. mgr.). 52 aalmlsmeferinni verur ekki betur s, samkvmt upplsingum fr innlenda dmstlnum, en a innlendar reglur um gerardmsmlsmefer leggja skyldu herar dmstlnum a hann stvi fullnustu greislu sem mlt er fyrir um gerardmsrskuri ef slk greisla er heimil a lgum ea brtur bga vi grundvallarsiferi. Enn fremur telur s dmstll a srhver sanngjarn skilmli sem birtist samningi sem gerur er vi neytanda stri, me tilliti til landslaga, gegn grundvallarsiferi ar sem hann myndi valda, vert krfuna um ga tr, umtalsveru jafnvgi rttindum og skyldum veitanda og neytanda, neytandanum til tjns. 53 Vi astur eins og r sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni, sbr. dminn mli Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, ar sem dmstl, sem hefur til meferar beini um fullnustu gerardmsrskurar, er heimilt, a eigin frumkvi, a stva beitingu ess gerardmsrskurar ef hann leggur vikomandi aila greislu sem er mguleg samkvmt hlutlgu mati, heimil a lgum ea strir gegn grundvallarsiferi, er v vikomandi dmstl skylt, ef hann br yfir vitneskju um lagalegu tti og mlsatvik sem a verkefni theimtir, a kanna a eigin frumkvi, tengslum vi fullnustumlsmeferina, hvort viurlgin sem mlt er fyrir um lnssamningi milli lnveitanda og neytanda su sanngjrn. 54 Svari vi a-li annarrar spurningarinnar er v a tilskipun 93/12 leggur skyldu herar innlendum dmstl, sem hefur til meferar beini um fullnustu endanlegs gerardmsrskurar sem kveinn var upp tivist og n tttku neytandans, ef hann br yfir nausynlegum upplsingum um lagalega stu og mlsatvik v skyni, a hann meti sanngirni viurlaga sem tilgreind eru lnssamningi sem lnveitandi hefur gert vi neytanda, ar sem eim viurlgum hefur veri beitt gerardmsrskurinum, ef innlendar mlsmeferarreglur leyfa a slkt mat fari fram svipari mlsmefer samkvmt landslgum. nnur spurning, b- og c-liir 55 b- og c-li annarrar spurningarinnar spyr innlendi dmstllinn, fyrsta lagi, hvort telja megi skilmla lnssamningi sem kveur um, tilviki vanskila af hlfu neytanda, dagleg viurlg upp 0,25% af lnsupphinni, .e.a.s. 91,25% af eirri upph ri, sanngjarnan skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 eirri forsendu a hann s hflegur, og ru lagi, ef svo er, hvort a s hlutverk innlends dmstls, sem kemst a eirri niurstu a hann s hflegur, a tryggja a neytandinn veri ekki bundinn af skilmlanum. 56 a skal teki fram essu sambandi a tengslum vi hugmyndirnar um ga tr og umtalsvert jafnvgi milli rttinda og skyldna samningsaila, skilgreinir 3. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 aeins almennt tti sem gera samningsskilmla, sem ekki hefur veri sami um srstaklega, sanngjarnan (sj v sambandi ml C478/99 framkvmdastjrnin gegn Svj [2002] ECR I-4147, 17. mgr., og ml C-237/02 Freiburger Kommunalbauten [2004] ECR I-3403, 19. mgr.). 57 2. mgr. 3. gr. eirrar tilskipunar segir a vallt beri a lta svo a ekki hafi veri sami srstaklega um skilmla ef hann hefur veri saminn fyrirfram og neytandinn v ekki haft tkifri til a hafa hrif efni hans, einkum samhengi vi fyrirfram oraan staalsamning, sem virist vera raunin aalmlsmeferinni. 58 Viaukinn sem 3. mgr. 3. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 vsar til inniheldur leibeinandi en ekki tmandi skr yfir skilmla sem telja m sanngjarna, .m.t., skv. li (1)(e) ess viauka, sem hafa a markmii ea au hrif ... a krefjast tilhlilegra bta af neytanda sem stendur ekki vi skuldbindingar snar. 59 Hva varar spurninguna um hvort tiltekinn skilmli samningi s sanngjarn eur ei, kveur 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13 um a vi mtun svarsins veri a taka tillit til elis vrunnar ea jnustunnar sem samningurinn var gerur um og me vsan til allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins eim tma sem hann var gerur. Rtt er a benda v sambandi a einnig ber a taka tillit til afleiinga skilmlans samkvmt eim lgum sem gilda um samninginn. etta krefst ess a tillit s teki til landslaga (Freiburger Kommunalbauten, sem vsa er til a ofan, 21. mgr.).

60 Af essu leiir a grundvelli lgsgu sinnar samkvmt 267. gr. sttmlans um starfshtti Evrpusambandsins getur Dmstllinn tlka almenn vimi sem notu eru lgum Evrpusambandsins til a skilgreina hugtaki sanngjarnir skilmlar. Hins vegar tti hann ekki a rskura um beitingu essara almennu vimia tiltekinn skilmla, sem ber a fjalla um ljsi srstakra mlsatvika mlsins sem um rir, og annig er a hlutverk hins innlenda dmstls a kvara hvort samningsskilmli eins og s sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni sem kveur, samkvmt niurstu innlenda dmstlsins, um hflega har btur, skuli teljast sanngjarn ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins (sj v sambandi Freiburger Kommunalbauten, sem vsa er til a ofan, 22. og 25. mgr.). 61 ar af leiandi, ef s dmstll kemst a eirri niurstu a skilmlinn sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni s sanngjarn skilningi tilskipunar 93/13, er rtt a benda a, samrmi vi 1.mgr. 6. gr. eirrar tilskipunar og samkvmt landslgum, skal slkur skilmli ekki vera bindandi fyrir neytandann, og a eim dmstl ber enn fremur, samkvmt sama kvi, a kanna hvort samningurinn geti haldi gildi snu a ru leyti n ess sanngjarna skilmla. 62 Vi slkar astur er a v hlutverk ess dmstls a gera grein fyrir llum afleiingum sem etta hefur fr me sr samkvmt landslgum v skyni a tryggja a neytandinn s ekki bundinn af skilmlanum (sj Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, 59. mgr.). 63 ljsi framangreinds er svari vi b- og c-lium annarrar spurningarinnar a a a er hlutverk hins innlenda dmstls a kvara hvort telja beri skilmla lnssamningi eins og ann sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni og sem kveur, samkvmt niurstum ess dmstls, um a neytandinn skuli greia hflega har btur, sanngjarnan ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins, skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. Ef s er raunin, er a hlutverk ess dmstls a gera grein fyrir llum afleiingum sem etta hefur fr me sr samkvmt landslgum, v skyni a tryggja a neytandinn s ekki bundinn af eim skilmla. Fyrsta spurningin 64 fyrstu spurningunni er innlendi dmstllinn reynd a spyrja hvort upplsingar um rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar neytandalnssamningi, eins og mlt er fyrir um a-li 2. mgr. 4. gr. tilskipunar 87/102, teljist nausynlegar upplsingar samningi af eim toga og ar af leiandi hvort misbrestur a tilgreina r upplsingar merki, skilningi 2. mgr. 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13, a skilmlar slks samnings hafi ekki veri orair skru og skiljanlegu mli, annig a vikomandi dmstll veri heimilt a meta skilmlann um lnskostna v skyni a kvara hvort hann kunni a vera sanngjarn skilningi 3. gr. sarnefndu tilskipunarinnar. 65 fyrsta lagi er rtt a taka fram, me hlisjn af dagsetningu lnssamningsins sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni og v sem kemur fram 11. mgr. essa rskurar, a essari spurningu verur a svara grundvelli tilskipunar 87/102 en ekki tilskipunar 2008/48. 66 v sambandi hefur dmstllinn ur rskura a tilgangur tilskipunar 87/102 s a tryggja a neytendur njti kveinnar lgmarksverndar mlum er vara neytendaln (ml C-429/05 Rampion og Godard [2007] ECR I-8017, 47. mgr., og ml C-509/07 Scarpelli [2009] ECR I-3311, 25. mgr.). eirri tilskipun, eins og ljst er af 15. gr. hennar og 25. forsendu inngangsorum hennar, ar sem fram kemur a tilskipunin komi ekki veg fyrir a aildarrkin vihaldi ea taki upp strangari kvi til verndar neytendum, er aeins kvei um lgmarkssamhfingu kva landslaga sem vara neytendaln (Rampion og Godard, sem vsa er til a ofan, 18. mgr.). 67 Dmstllinn hefur einnig treka komist a eirri niurstu a tilskipun 87/102, eins og ljst er af forsendunum inngangsorum hennar, hafi veri samykkt me v tvfalda markmii a tryggja hvort tveggja myndun sameiginlegs neytandalnamarkaar (3. til 5. forsenda) og vernd neytenda sem nta sr slk ln (6., 7. og 9. forsendur) (ml C-208/98 Berliner Kindl Brauerei [2000] ECR I-1741, 20. mgr., og ml C-264/02 Cofinoga [2004] ECR I-2157, 25. mgr.). 68 a er v augnamii a vernda neytandann gegn sanngjrnum lnskjrum og a gera honum kleift a hafa fulla vitneskju um skilmla framtarefnda samningsins sem 4. gr. tilskipunar 87/102 kveur um a, eim tma sem slkur samningur er gerur, skuli lntakinn hafa tiltkar allar upplsingar sem gtu haft hrif afleiingar kvrunar hans (Berliner Kindl Brauerei, sem vsa er til a ofan, 21. mgr.). 69 1. og 2. mgr. 4. gr. tilskipunar 87/102 er kvei um a lnssamningur skuli vera skriflegur og a s skriflegi samningur skuli tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar og undir hvaa kringumstum henni megi breyta. gr. 1a eirrar tilskipunar er mlt fyrir um aferir vi treikning rlegrar hlutfallstlu kostnar og, mgr. 4(a), a hana beri a reikna egar lnssamningurinn er gerur (sj v sambandi Cofinoga, sem vsa er til a ofan, 23. mgr.).

70 a a neytandinn s upplstur um heildarlntkukostna, formi vaxtaprsentu sem reiknu er samkvmt einni strfriformlu, er srlega mikilvgt essu tilliti. fyrsta lagi stula essar upplsingar, sem samkvmt 3. gr. tilskipunar 87/102 skulu koma fram llum auglsingum, a gagnsi markai, enda gera r neytandanum kleift a bera saman lnstilbo. ru lagi gera r neytandanum kleift a meta umfang byrgar sinnar (Cofinoga, sem vsa er til a ofan, 26. mgr.). 71 ar af leiandi, vi astur eins og r sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni, getur misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar vikomandi lnssamningi, sem eru nausynlegar upplsingar skilningi tilskipunar 87/102, haft rslitaingu mati innlends dmstls v hvort skilmli lnssamnings um kostna af v lni ar sem slkt er ekki tilgreint, s oraur skru og skiljanlegu mli skilningi 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. 72 Ef s er ekki raunin er innlendum dmstl heimilt a meta sanngjarnt eli slks skilmla me hlisjn af 3. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. Jafnvel tt slkur skilmli s talinn falla undir gildissvi undangunnar sem kvei er um eirri grein, ber a athuga a skilmlarnir sem um getur 2. mgr. 4. gr. eirrar tilskipunar, eir heyri til ess svis sem fellur undir tilskipun 93/13, eru undanegnir mati v hvort eir su sanngjarnir aeins a svo miklu leyti sem innlendi dmstllinn, sem hefur lgsgu, kemst a eirri niurstu, eftir skoun hvers mls fyrir sig, a seljandi ea veitandi hafi sami skru og skiljanlegu mli (sj ml C-484/08 Caja de Ahorros Y Monte de Piedad de Madrid [2010] ECR I-4785, 32. mgr.). 73 aalmlsmeferinni mtti einnig taka til athugunar sanngjarnt eli skilmla lnssamnings ar sem rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar er ekki nefnd me hlisjn af tilskipun 93/13, en v sambandi, eins og bent var 53. mgr. essa rskurar, hefur innlendi dmstllinn vald til a kanna slkan skilmla a eigin frumkvi. Vi slkar astur, eins og kom fram 60. mgr. essa rskurar, er a hlutverk innlenda dmstlsins a meta, ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni, hvort misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar skilmla neytendalnssamnings um kostna af lntkunni stuli a v a skilmlinn s eli snu sanngjarn skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. 74 Hins vegar leiir a af upplsingunum sem innlendi dmstllinn veitti a samkvmt 4. gr. laga nr 258/2001, sem lgleiddu tilskipun 87/102, beri a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar neytendalnssamningi og, ef a er ekki gert, teljist neytendalni sem veitt var vaxtalaust og gjaldfrjlst. 75 14. gr. tilskipunarinnar eru aildarrkin skyldu til a tryggja a lnssamningar vki ekki, neytendum hag, fr kvum landslaga sem innleia tilskipun ea svara til hennar. 76 ar af leiandi, vi astur eins og r sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni, ber a tlka tilskipun 87/102 annig a hn heimili innlendum dmstlum a beita a eigin frumkvi, n ess a nausynlegt s a kanna sanngjarnt eli skilmlans ar sem rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar er ekki tilgreind me hlisjn af tilskipun 93/13, kvunum sem leia 4. gr. tilskipunarinnar landslg og annig a hn kvei um a misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar neytendalnssamningi merki a lni sem veitt er teljist vera vaxtalaust og gjaldfrjlst (sj, me lgjfnun fr 2. mgr. 11. gr. tilskipunar 87/102, Rampion og Godard, sem vsa er til a ofan, 69. mgr.). 77 samrmi vi a er svari vi fyrstu spurningunni a vi astur eins og r sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni, getur misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar lnssamningi, sem eru nausynlegar upplsingar skilningi tilskipunar 87/102, haft rslitaingu mati innlends dmstls v hvort skilmli lnssamnings um kostna af v lni ar sem slkt er ekki tilgreint, s oraur skru og skiljanlegu mli skilningi 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. Ef s er ekki raunin hefur dmstllinn vald til a meta, a eigin frumkvi, hvort, ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins, a a rlegrar hlutfallstlu kostnaar er ekki geti skilmla samningsins um kostna af lntkunni stuli a v a skilmlinn s eli snu sanngjarn skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. rtt fyrir heimildina sem veitt er til a meta samninginn ljsi tilskipunar 93/13 ber hins vegar a tlka tilskipun 87/102 annig a hn heimili innlendum dmstlum a beita a eigin frumkvi kvunum sem leia 4. gr. sarnefndu tilskipunarinnar landslg og annig a hn kvei um a misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar neytendalnssamningi merki a lni sem veitt er teljist vera vaxtalaust og gjaldfrjlst. rija spurningin 78 Me essari spurningu spyr innlendi dmstllinn hvort, vi astur eins og r sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni, og a v marki sem hann kemst a eirri niurstu a ekki hafi veri fari eftir kvum tilskipana 87/102 og 93/13, hann hafi vald, samkvmt neytendaverndarreglum Evrpusambandsins, til a stva ea takmarka fullnustu endanlegs gerardmsrskurar sem kveinn var upp samkvmt gerardmskvi lnssamningnum. 79 v sambandi ber a athuga a skv. 267. gr. sttmlans um starfshtti Evrpusambandsins hefur Dmstllinn ekki vald til a beita reglum laga Evrpusambandsins tilteknu mli, heldur aeins til a rskura um

tlkun sttmlans og gera sem stofnanir Evrpusambandsins hafa samykkt (ml C-291/03 MyTravel [2005] ECR I-8477, 43. gr. og dmaframkvmdin sem vsa var til). 80 Me essari spurningu er innlendi dmstllinn a bija Dmstlinn um a leibeina honum um a hvort, vi astur eins og r sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni, me hlisjn af svrunum sem Dmstllinn veitti vi fyrstu og annarri spurningunni, hann megi, samkvmt lgum Evrpusambandsins og landslgum, takmarka fullnustu endanlega gerardmsrskurarins sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni vi tistandandi fjrh sem greia ber samkvmt neytendalnssamningnum. 81 A svo miklu leyti sem Dmstlinn yrfti a rskura um eiginlega beitingu lagareglnanna sem tlkaar eru samhengi fyrstu tveggja spurninganna mlsatvik umrdds mls til a svara essari spurningu og, hva sem ru lur, ljsi ess a grundvelli svaranna sem veitt hafa veri vi essum spurningum br innlendi dmstllinn yfir eim tlkunarrrum sem rf er til a leysa r deilunni sem fyrir honum liggur, er engin rf a svara essari spurningu. Kostnaur 82 ar sem essi mlarekstur er, fyrir aila aalmlsmeferinnar, liur mlinu sem bur meferar innlends dmstls, tekur s dmstll kvrun um kostna. Kostnaur sem falli hefur til vegna framlagningar athugasemda til Dmstlsins, annar en kostnaur eirra aila, er ekki endurheimtanlegur. eim grundvelli kveur Dmstllinn (Fyrsta deild) hr me upp eftirfarandi rskur: 1. Tilskipun 93/13/EBE fr 5. aprl 1993 um sanngjarna skilmla neytendasamningum leggur skyldu herar innlendum dmstl, sem hefur til meferar beini um fullnustu endanlegs gerardmsrskurar sem kveinn var upp tivist og n tttku neytandans, a hann meti, a eigin frumkvi, ef hann br yfir nausynlegum upplsingum um lagalega stu og mlsatvik v skyni, sanngirni viurlaga sem tilgreind eru lnssamningi sem lnveitandi hefur gert vi neytanda, ar sem eim viurlgum hefur veri beitt gerardmsrskurinum, ef innlendar mlsmeferarreglur leyfa a slkt mat fari fram svipari mlsmefer samkvmt landslgum. 2. a er hlutverk hins innlenda dmstls a kvara hvort telja beri skilmla lnssamningi eins og ann sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni og sem kveur, samkvmt niurstum ess dmstls, um a neytandinn skuli greia hflega har btur, sanngjarnan ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins, skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. Ef s er raunin, er a hlutverk ess dmstls a gera grein fyrir llum afleiingum sem etta hefur fr me sr samkvmt landslgum, v skyni a tryggja a neytandinn s ekki bundinn af eim skilmla. 3. Vi astur eins og r sem um rir aalmlsmeferinni getur misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar neytendalnssamningi, en rleg hlutfallstala kostnaar telst til nausynlegra upplsinga skilningi tilskipunar 87/102/EBE um samrmingu lgum og stjrnsslufyrirmlum aildarrkjanna varandi neytendaln, eins og henni var breytt me tilskipun Evrpuingsins og rsins 98/7/EB fr 16. febrar 1998, ri rslitum mati innlends dmstls v hvort skilmli neytendalnssamnings um kostna af lntkunni ar sem slkra upplsinga er ekki geti, s oraur skru og skiljanlegu mli skilningi 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. Ef s er ekki raunin hefur dmstllinn vald til a meta, a eigin frumkvi, hvort, ljsi allra astna sem uppi voru vi ger samningsins, a a rlegrar hlutfallstlu kostnaar er ekki geti skilmla samningsins um kostna af lntkunni stuli a v a skilmlinn s eli snu sanngjarn skilningi 3. og 4. gr. tilskipunar 93/13. rtt fyrir heimildina sem veitt er til a meta samninginn ljsi tilskipunar 93/13 ber hins vegar a tlka tilskipun 87/102 annig a hn heimili innlendum dmstlum a beita a eigin frumkvi kvunum sem leia 4. gr. sarnefndu tilskipunarinnar landslg og annig a hn kvei um a misbrestur a tilgreina rlega hlutfallstlu kostnaar neytendalnssamningi merki a lni sem veitt er teljist vera vaxtalaust og gjaldfrjlst.

POHOTOVOS

ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 16November 2010 *

In Case C-76/10,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article267 TFEU from the Krajsk sd v Preove (Slovakia), made by decision of 19January 2010, received at the Court on 9February 2010, in the proceedings

Pohotovos s. r. o.

Iveta Korkovsk,

* Language of the case: Slovakian.

I - 11561

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of L.Bay Larsen, Acting for the President of the Eighth Chamber, C.Toader (Rapporteur) and A.Prechal, Judges,

Advocate General: N.Jskinen, Registrar: A.Calot Escobar,

the Court proposing to give its decision by reasoned order pursuant to the rst subparagraph of Article104(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), read in conjunction with the European Union rules applicable to consumer credit contracts.
I - 11562

POHOTOVOS
2

The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Pohotovos s. r. o. (Pohotovos) and Ms Korkovsk concerning the enforcement of an arbitration award ordering her, under the provisions of a credit agreement for the sum of SKK 20 000 (EUR663.88) concluded between those parties, to pay the company the sum of SKK 48 820 (EUR1 620.53) plus default interest and costs.

Legal context

European Union legislation

Directive 87/102/EEC

The twenty-fth recital in the preamble to Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L42, p.48), as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16February 1998 (OJ 1998 L101, p.17, Directive 87/102) reads as follows:

Whereas, since this Directive provides for a certain degree of approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit and for a certain level of consumer protection, Member States should
I - 11563

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

not be prevented from retaining or adopting more stringent measures to protect the consumer, with due regard for their obligations under the Treaty.

Article1 of Directive 87/102 provides:

1. This Directive applies to credit agreements.

2. For the purpose of this Directive:

(a) consumer means a natural person who, in transactions covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which can be regarded as outside his trade or profession;

(b) creditor means a natural or legal person who grants credit in the course of his trade, business or profession, or a group of such persons;

(c) credit agreement means an agreement whereby a creditor grants or promises to grant to a consumer a credit in the form of a deferred payment, a loan or other similar nancial accommodation.

I - 11564

POHOTOVOS

(d) total cost of the credit to the consumer means all the costs, including interest and other charges, which the consumer has to pay for the credit;

(e) annual percentage rate of charge means the total cost of the credit to the consumer expressed as an annual percentage of the amount of the credit granted and calculated in accordance with Article1a.

Article1a of that directive provides:

1. (a) The annual percentage rate of charge, which shall be that equivalent, on an annual basis, to the present value of all commitments (loans, repayments and charges), future or existing, agreed by the creditor and the borrower, shall be calculated in accordance with the mathematical formula set out in AnnexII.

(b) Four examples of the method of calculation are given in AnnexIII, by way of illustration.

2. For the purpose of calculating the annual percentage rate of charge, the total cost of the credit to the consumer as dened in Article1(2)(d) shall be determined, with the exception of the following charges:

(i) charges payable by the borrower for non-compliance with any of his commitments laid down in the credit agreement;

I - 11565

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

(iii) charges for the transfer of funds and charges for keeping an account intended to receive payments towards the reimbursement of the credit, the payment of interest and other charges except where the consumer does not have reasonable freedom of choice in the matter and where such charges are abnormally high; this provision shall not, however, apply to charges for collection of such reimbursements or payments, whether made in cash or otherwise;

4. (a) The annual percentage rate of charge shall be calculated at the time the credit contract is concluded, without prejudice to the provisions of Article3 concerning advertisements and special oers.

(b) The calculation shall be made on the assumption that the credit contract is valid for the period agreed and that the creditor and the consumer full their obligations under the terms and by the dates agreed.

6. In the case of credit contracts containing clauses allowing variations in the rate of interest and the amount or level of other charges contained in the annual percentage rate of charge but unquantiable at the time when it is calculated, the annual percentage rate of charge shall be calculated on the assumption that interest and other charges remain xed and will apply until the end of the credit contract.

I - 11566

POHOTOVOS
6

Article4 of Directive 87/102 provides:

1. Credit agreements shall be made in writing. The consumer shall receive a copy of the written agreement.

2. The written agreement shall include:

(a) a statement of the annual percentage rate of charge;

(b) a statement of the conditions under which the annual percentage rate of charge may be amended;

(c) a statement of the amount, number and frequency or dates of the payments which the consumer must make to repay the credit, as well as of the payments for interest and other charges; the total amount of these payments should also be indicated where possible;

(d) a statement of the cost items referred to in Article1a(2) with the exception of expenditure related to the breach of contractual obligations which were not included in the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge but which have to be paid by the consumer in given circumstances, together with a statement identifying such circumstances. Where the exact amount of those items is known, that sum is to be indicated; if that is not the case, either a method of calculation or as accurate an estimate as possible is to be provided where possible.
I - 11567

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

In cases where it is not possible to state the annual percentage rate of charge, the consumer shall be provided with adequate information in the written agreement. This information shall at least include the information provided for in the second indent of Article6(1).

Article6(1) and(2) of Directive 87/102 provides:

1. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided for in Article2(1)(e), where there is an agreement between a credit institution or nancial institution and a consumer for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, other than on credit card accounts, the consumer shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

of the credit limit, if any,

of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

of the procedure for terminating the agreement.

This information shall be conrmed in writing.


I - 11568

POHOTOVOS

2. Furthermore, during the period of the agreement, the consumer shall be informed of any change in the annual rate of interest or in the relevant charges at the time it occurs. Such information may be given in a statement of account or in any other manner acceptable to Member States.

Article14 of that directive provides:

1. Member States shall ensure that credit agreements shall not derogate, to the detriment of the consumer, from the provisions of national law implementing or corresponding to this Directive.

2. Member States shall further ensure that the provisions which they adopt in implementation of this Directive are not circumvented as a result of the way in which agreements are formulated, in particular by the device of distributing the amount of credit over several agreements.

Article15 of that directive states:

This Directive shall not preclude Member States from retaining or adopting more stringent provisions to protect consumers consistent with their obligations under the Treaty.
I - 11569

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

Directive 2008/48/EC

10

Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23April2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L133, p.66) imposes a general obligation on the lender to provide the consumer, at the pre-contractual stage and in the credit agreement, with certain information including the annual percentage rate of charge (the APR). AnnexI to that directive sets out a harmonised method of calculating the APR.

11

In accordance with Articles27 and29 of Directive 2008/48, the transposition period for that directive expired on 12May 2010, the date on which Directive87/102 was repealed.

Directive 93/13

12

Article3 of Directive 93/13 provides:

1. A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a signicant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

2. A term shall always be regarded as not individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to inuence the substance of the term, particularly in the context of a pre-formulated standard contract.
I - 11570

POHOTOVOS

The fact that certain aspects of a term or one specic term have been individually negotiated shall not exclude the application of this Article to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of the contract indicates that it is nevertheless a pre-formulated standard contract.

Where any seller or supplier claims that a standard term has been individually negotiated, the burden of proof in this respect shall be incumbent on him.

3. The Annex shall contain an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

13

Article4 of that directive provides:

1. Without prejudice to Article7, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

2. Assessment of the unfair nature of the terms shall relate neither to the denition of the main subject matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language.
I - 11571

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10


14

Article5 of that directive reads as follows:

In the case of contracts where all or certain terms oered to the consumer are in writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible language. Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail. This rule on interpretation shall not apply in the context of the procedures laid down in Article7(2).

15

Under Article6(1) of that directive Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms.

16

Article7 of Directive 93/13 provides:

1. Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and eective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers.

2. The means referred to in paragraph1 shall include provisions whereby persons or organisations, having a legitimate interest under national law in protecting consumers, may take action according to the national law concerned before the courts or before competent administrative bodies for a decision as to whether contractual
I - 11572

POHOTOVOS

terms drawn up for general use are unfair, so that they can apply appropriate and eective means to prevent the continued use of such terms.

3. With due regard for national laws, the legal remedies referred to in paragraph2may be directed separately or jointly against a number of sellers or suppliers from the same economic sector or their associations which use or recommend the use of the same general contractual terms or similar terms.

17

Under Article 8 of Directive 93/13 Member States may adopt or retain the most stringent provisions compatible with the Treaty in the area covered by this Directive, to ensure a maximum degree of protection for the consumer.

18

Point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, concerning the terms referred to in Article3(3) thereof, mentions [T]erms which have the object or eect of... (e) requiring any consumer who fails to full his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

The Slovakian rules

19

Article52 of the Slovakian Civil Code provides:

(1) Contract concluded with a consumer means any contract, in whatever legal form, concluded between a supplier and a consumer.
I - 11573

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

(2) The terms of a contract concluded with a consumer and any other provision governing a legal relationship involving a consumer shall always apply in favour of the consumer who is party to the contract. Separate treaties or contractual agreements the substance or object of which aims to circumvent those provisions shall be invalid.

...

(4) Consumer means a natural person who, in the conclusion and enforcement of a consumer contract, is acting for purposes outside his trade or profession.

20

Article53 of that code provides:

(1) A contract concluded with a consumer must not contain provisions causing a signicant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer (unfair term). A contractual term relating to the principal subject of the transaction or the appropriateness of the price shall not be deemed to be unfair if that term is precisely formulated in plain and intelligible language or if the unfair term has been individually negotiated.

I - 11574

POHOTOVOS

(4) Unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer include in particular provisions which:

(k) impose a penalty on any consumer who fails to full his obligations requiring him to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation,

(5) Unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer shall be invalid.

21

Article4 of Act No258/2001 on consumer credit, as it applied on the date of the facts in the main proceedings, provides:

Consumer credit contract

(1) The consumer credit contract must be drawn up in writing, otherwise it shall be invalid; the consumer shall receive a copy.

(2) The consumer credit contract must contain, in addition to the general items,

I - 11575

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

(j) the annual percentage rate of charge and the total costs associated with the credit to be borne by the consumer, calculated on the basis of data valid on the date on which the contract is concluded,

...

If the consumer credit contract does not contain the items indicated in paragraph2... (j), the credit granted shall be deemed to be interest-free and free of charge.

22

Article45 of Act No244/2002 on the arbitration procedure, as it applied on the date of the facts in the main proceedings, provides:

(1) A court competent in enforcement proceedings under specic legislation shall, upon an application from the party against whom enforcement of an arbitration award is ordered, discontinue the enforcement proceedings.

...

(c) if the arbitration award binds a party to arbitration proceedings to provide performance which is objectively impossible, unlawful or contrary to basic morality.
I - 11576

POHOTOVOS

(2) A court competent in enforcement proceedings shall discontinue the enforcement of an arbitration award or enforcement proceedings of its own motion if it nds irregularities in the arbitration proceedings pursuant to paragraph(1)(b) or(c).

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

23

On 26February 2008, Ms Korkovsk, who is disabled and receives an invalidity pension amounting to approximately EUR370 per month, entered into a credit agreement with Pohotovos, the general terms and conditions of which were as follows. The sum borrowed was SKK20000 (EUR663.88) and the fees relating to the credit were SKK19 120 (EUR634.67). Ms Korkovsk was required to repay the principal and the costs over one year in monthly instalments of SKK3 260 (EUR108.21). According to the national court, the APR on the credit was thus 95.6 %, but it was not mentioned as such in the general terms and conditions of credits granted by Pohotovos or in the credit agreement concluded.

24

Under Article4 of those general terms and conditions, the whole debt becomes immediately payable if the debtor defaults, in part or in full, on two consecutive instalments. Moreover, in such a case, Article6 of those general terms and conditions provides for the payment of daily default interest amounting to0.25 % of the sum due, starting from the date on which the debt becomes payable until the date it is nally paid o. The penalty thus corresponds to an annual rate of 91.25 %. In that regard, the national court points out that, under Slovakian law, the penalties laid down in the form of default interest in civil cases must not exceed the base rate of the European Central Bank, which is currently xed at 1 %, plus eight percentage points, that is, a total of 9 %.
I - 11577

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10


25

Article 17 of the same general terms and conditions provides that disputes arising from a credit agreement are to be settled either in Bratislava by the Stly rozhodcovsk sd (Permanent Court of Arbitration) or by a national court with jurisdiction chosen by the contracting party bringing an action. Moreover, under Article 19 of those general terms and conditions, all relations between the lender and the borrower are governed by the provisions of the Commercial Code and not by those of the Civil Code. The national court adds that the agreement at issue in the main proceedings contained a power of attorney for a lawyer to represent MsKorkovsk.

26

As Ms Korkovsk failed to pay two consecutive monthly instalments, on 9 October 2008 Pohotovos led an action before the Stly rozhodcovsk sd, which, on 3November 2008, delivered an arbitration award, in which it ordered the party concerned to pay the company in particular the sum of SKK 48 820 (EUR1 620.53) plus default interest amounting to SKK 39 120 (EUR 1 298.55) and costs of SKK 9 928 (EUR329.55). The award became nal on 15December 2008 and became enforceable on 18December 2008.

27

On the basis of that award, on 9March 2009 a baili applied to the Okresn sd Star ubova (Star ubova District Court) for an enforcement order to recover the sum of EUR3 467. By order of 31July 2009, that court discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that they contravened basic morality as regards the costs of the applicants legal representative in the enforcement proceedings, which exceeded the sum of EUR94.61, and as regards the recovery of default interest amounting to0.25 % per day on a sum of EUR1 298.52, from 21July 2008 until full payment of the debt.

28

On 26August 2009 Pohotovos appealed against that order before the Krajsk sd v Preove (Regional Court in Preov). In support of Ms Korkovsk, the Asocicia spotrebiteskch subjektov Slovenska (Association of Consumer Organisations of Slovakia, the Asocicia) was granted leave to lodge a statement in which in particular
I - 11578

POHOTOVOS

it informed that court of the large number of enforcement proceedings brought in Slovakia by Pohotovos. The Asocicia considers that the general terms and conditions of the credit granted by that company contain unfair terms and amount to unfair business practices, and it proposed to the national court that it should make a reference to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article267 TFEU.

29

Moreover, taking the view that the complaint submitted by the Asocicia contains facts which it must examine of its own motion, the Krajsk sd v Preove decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

1. (a) Is information about the total cost to the consumer in percentage points (the annual percentage rate APR) of such importance that failure to mention it in the contract could render the cost of consumer credit non-transparent and insuciently clear and comprehensible?

(b) Is it possible, under the consumer protection framework provided by Council Directive 93/13 , to regard the price as an unfair condition in a credit contract on the grounds of insucient transparency and clarity if the contract fails to set out information on the total cost of consumer credit in percentage points and the price is expressed solely as a nancial sum consisting of various fees specied both in the contract and in the General Terms and Conditions?

2. (a) Must Council Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing an application for enforcement of a nal arbitral award issued without the participation of the consumer, is required of its own motion, where the necessary information on the legal and factual state of aairs is
I - 11579

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

available to it for this purpose, to consider the fairness of a penalty contained in the credit agreement concluded by a creditor with a consumer if, according to national procedural rules, such an assessment may be conducted in similar proceedings under national law?

(b) If the penalty for a violation of the consumers obligations is disproportionate, is it for this court to draw the necessary conclusions arising therefrom under national law to ensure that the consumer will not be bound by that penalty?

(c) Can a penalty of 0.25 % per day on outstanding credit, i.e. 91.25 % p.a., be regarded as an unfair condition on the grounds that it is disproportionate?

3. In the application of EU legislation (Council Directive 93/13 , Directive2008/48 repealing Directive 87/102 ) is the consumer protection framework of such a nature in relation to consumer credit agreements that, if a contract circumvents regulations designed to protect consumers in the eld of consumer credit and if, under such a contract, an application is submitted for the enforcement of a ruling under an arbitral award, the court may discontinue enforcement proceedings or permit enforcement proceedings at the creditors expense only up to the outstanding amount of the credit granted, if, under national rules, such an assessment of an arbitral award is admissible and the court has the necessary information about the factual or legal state of aairs at its disposal?
I - 11580

POHOTOVOS

The questions referred

30

Pursuant to the rst subparagraph of Article104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where the answer to a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate General, at any time give its decision by reasoned order.

31

The Court considers that that applies in the present case.

Admissibility

32

Pohotovos argues in its written observations, rst, that the replies to some of the questions referred may be provided by means of an order adopted on the basis of Article104(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Secondly, it submits in particular that the rst and third questions do not relate to the interpretation of European Union law and that, in general, the national court did not full the obligation incumbent on it to settle the questions of national law prior to making the reference to the Court under the mechanism provided by Article267 TFEU.

33

In that regard, it suces to observe that, rst, while it may be convenient, in certain circumstances, for questions of purely national law to be settled at the time the reference is made to the Court, national courts have the widest discretion in referring matters to the Court if they consider that a case pending before them raises questions involving interpretation of provisions of EU law, or consideration of their validity,
I - 11581

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

necessitating a decision on their part (Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10 Melki and Abdeli [2010] ECR I-5667, paragraph41 and the case-law cited).

34

As regards the questions referred by the national court, it must be said that they relate to the interpretation of European Union law.

35

Consequently, the Court must reply to those questions raised by the Krajsk sd v Preove.

The second question, part(a)

36

By part (a) of its second question, which should be examined rst of all, the national court asks whether, pursuant to Directive 93/13, a national court, hearing an application for enforcement of a nal arbitration award issued by default and without the participation of the consumer, is required of its own motion, where the necessary information on the legal and factual state of aairs is available to it for this purpose, to consider the fairness of a penalty contained in a credit agreement concluded by a creditor with a consumer, that penalty having been applied in that award, if, according to national procedural rules, such an assessment may be conducted in similar proceedings under national law.

37

According to settled case-law, the system of protection introduced by Directive93/13 is based on the idea that the consumer is in a weak position vis--vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his bargaining power and his level of knowledge. This leads to the consumer agreeing to terms drawn up in advance by the seller or supplier
I - 11582

POHOTOVOS

without being able to inuence the content of those terms (Joined Cases C-240/98 toC-244/98 Ocano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-4941, paragraph25, and Case C-168/05 Mostaza Claro [2006] ECR I-10421, paragraph25).

38

As regards such a weaker position, Article6(1) of Directive 93/13 provides that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer. As follows from the case-law, it is a mandatory provision which aims to replace the formal balance which the contract establishes between the rights and obligations of the parties with an eective balance which re-establishes equality between them (Mostaza Claro, cited above, paragraph36, and Case C-243/08 Pannon GSM [2009] ECR I-4713, paragraph25).

39

In order to guarantee the protection intended by Directive 93/13, the Court has also stated on a number of occasions that the imbalance which exists between the consumer and the seller or supplier may be corrected only by positive action unconnected with the actual parties to the contract (Ocano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, cited above, paragraph27; Mostaza Claro, cited above, paragraph26; and Case C-40/08 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones [2009] ECR I-9579, paragraph31).

40

It is in the light of those principles that the Court has therefore held that the national court is required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term is unfair (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, cited above, paragraph32).

41

A courts power to determine of its own motion whether a term is unfair must be regarded as constituting a proper means both of achieving the result sought by Article6 of Directive 93/13, namely, preventing an individual consumer from being bound by an unfair term, and of contributing to the attainment of the objective of Article7, since, if the court undertakes such an examination, that may act as a deterrent and contribute to preventing unfair terms being used by traders in contracts concluded
I - 11583

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

with consumers (Case C-473/00 Codis [2002] ECR I-10875, paragraph32, and Mostaza Claro, cited above, paragraph27).

42

That power of the national court has been regarded as necessary for ensuring that the consumer enjoys eective protection, in view in particular of the real risk that he is unaware of his rights or encounters diculties in enforcing them (Codis, cited above, paragraph33, and Mostaza Claro, cited above, paragraph28).

43

The protection which the directive confers on consumers thus extends to cases in which a consumer who has concluded with a seller or supplier a contract containing an unfair term fails to raise the unfair nature of the term, whether because he is unaware of his rights or because he is deterred from enforcing them on account of the costs which judicial proceedings would involve (Codis, cited above, paragraph34).

44

Such protection is all the more justied where, as the national court appears to consider in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the credit contract at issue in the main proceedings contains a power of attorney for a lawyer chosen by the creditor who is to represent the consumer or debtor, who may not choose to be represented by another lawyer unless he pays a contractual penalty equal to15 % of the amount of the credit.

45

It is true that, according to the case-law of the Court, European Union law does not require a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring nality on a decision, such as an arbitration award, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy an infringement of a provision of European Union law, regardless of
I - 11584

POHOTOVOS

its nature, on the part of the decision at issue (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, cited above, paragraph37).

46

Indeed, the Court has already had occasion to observe that, in order to ensure stability of the law and legal relations, as well as the sound administration of justice, it is important that judicial decisions which have become denitive after all rights of appeal have been exhausted or after expiry of the time-limits provided to exercise those rights can no longer be called into question (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, cited above, paragraph36, and the case-law cited).

47

Thus, in the absence of European Union legislation in this area, the rules implementing the principle of res judicata are a matter for the national legal order, in accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States. However, those rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence); nor may they be framed in such a way as to make it in practice impossible or excessively dicult to exercise the rights conferred by European Union law (principle of eectiveness) (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, cited above, paragraph38).

48

In accordance with the principle of equivalence, the conditions imposed by domestic law under which the courts and tribunals may apply a rule of European Union law of their own motion must not be less favourable than those governing the application by those bodies of their own motion of rules of domestic law of the same ranking (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, cited above, paragraph49, and the case-law cited).

49

In that regard, it must be pointed out that Article6(1) of Directive 93/13 is a mandatory provision. It should also be noted that, according to the Courts case-law, that directive as a whole constitutes a measure which is essential to the accomplishment of the tasks entrusted to the European Union and, in particular, to raising the standard
I - 11585

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

of living and the quality of life throughout the Union (Mostaza Claro, cited above, paragraph37, and Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, cited above, paragraph51).

50

Accordingly, in view of the nature and importance of the public interest underlying the protection which Directive 93/13 confers on consumers, Article6 of the directive must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, paragraph52).

51

It follows from this in particular that, inasmuch as the national court or tribunal seised of an action for enforcement of a nal arbitration award is required, in accordance with domestic rules of procedure, to assess of its own motion whether an arbitration clause is in conict with domestic rules of public policy, it is also obliged to assess of its own motion whether that clause is unfair in the light of Article6 of that directive, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task (Pannon GSM, cited above, paragraph 32, and Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, cited above, paragraph53).

52

In the main proceedings, it appears that, according to the information provided by the national court, the national rules on arbitration proceedings require the court to discontinue the enforcement of a payment laid down by an arbitration award where that payment is prohibited by law or where it contravenes basic morality. Moreover, that court considers that any unfair term appearing in a contract concluded with a consumer would, in terms of national law, contravene basic morality since, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it would cause a signicant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the supplier and of the consumer to the detriment of the consumer.
I - 11586

POHOTOVOS
53

Thus, as in the context of the Asturcom Telecomunicaciones judgment, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the court seised with a view to the enforcement of an arbitration award may, of its own motion, discontinue the application of that arbitration award where that award imposes on the party concerned an objectively impossible payment, prohibited by law or contrary to basic morality, that court must, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, examine, of its own motion, within the context of the enforcement proceedings, whether the penalty laid down by a credit contract concluded between a creditor and a consumer is unfair.

54

The answer to part (a) of the second question is therefore that Directive 93/13 requires a national court, hearing an application for enforcement of a nal arbitration award issued by default and without the participation of the consumer, of its own motion, where the necessary information on the legal and factual state of aairs is available to it for this purpose, to consider the fairness of a penalty contained in the credit agreement concluded by a creditor with a consumer, that penalty having been applied in that award, where, according to national procedural rules, such an assessment may be conducted in similar proceedings under national law.

The second question, parts (b) and(c)

55

By its second question, parts (b) and(c), the national court asks, rst, whether a term contained in a credit agreement providing, in the event of non-payment by the consumer, for a daily penalty of 0.25 % of the amount of the credit, that is to say 91.25 % of that amount per year, may be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Articles3 and4 of Directive 93/13 on the grounds that it is disproportionate, and, secondly, if
I - 11587

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

that is the case, whether it is for a national court which nds that it is disproportionate to ensure that the consumer will not be bound by that term.

56

It should be noted in that regard that, in referring to concepts of good faith and signicant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties, Article 3 of Directive 93/13 merely denes in a general way the factors that render unfair a contractual term that has not been individually negotiated (see, to that eect, Case C-478/99 Commission v Sweden [2002] ECR I-4147, paragraph17, and Case C-237/02 Freiburger Kommunalbauten [2004] ECR I-3403, paragraph19).

57

Article3(2) of that directive provides, however, that a term is always to be regarded as not individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to inuence the substance of the term, particularly in the context of a pre-formulated standard contract, which appears to be the case in the main proceedings.

58

The annex to which Article3(3) of Directive 93/13 refers contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair, including, under point(1)(e) of that annex, those which have the object or eect of... requiring any consumer who fails to full his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

59

As to the question whether a particular term in a contract is, or is not, unfair, Article4 of Directive 93/13 provides that the answer should be reached taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract. It should be pointed out in that respect that the consequences
I - 11588

POHOTOVOS

of the term under the law applicable to the contract must also be taken into account. This requires that consideration be given to the national law (Freiburger Kommunalbauten, cited above, paragraph21).

60

It follows that, in the context of its jurisdiction under Article267 TFEU to interpret European Union law, the Court may interpret general criteria used by the European Union legislature in order to dene the concept of unfair terms. However, it should not rule on the application of these general criteria to a particular term, which must be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the case in question, and so it is for the national court to decide whether a contractual term such as that at issue in the main proceedings providing, according to the ndings of the national court, for a disproportionately high sum in compensation, is to be regarded as unfair in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract (see, in that regard, Freiburger Kommunalbauten, cited above, paragraphs22 and25).

61

Consequently, if that court reaches the conclusion that the term at issue in the main proceedings is unfair within the meaning of Directive 93/13, it should be pointed out that, in accordance with Article6(1) of that directive, and as provided for under national law, such a term is not to be binding on the consumer and that, moreover, under the same provision, that court will have to examine whether the contract can continue in existence without that unfair term.

62

In such a situation, it is therefore for that court to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that term (see Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, paragraph59).
I - 11589

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10


63

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to parts (b) and(c) of the second question is that it is for the national court to determine whether a term in a credit agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings providing, according to the ndings of that court, for the consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation, must, in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Articles3 and4 of Directive 93/13. If that is the case, it is for that court to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that term.

The rst question

64

By its rst question, the national court asks, in essence, whether the mention of the APR in a consumer credit contract, as laid down in Article4(2)(a) of Directive87/102, constitutes essential information in that type of contract and consequently whether the failure to mention that information means that, within the meaning of Article4(2) of Directive 93/13, the terms of that contract are not drafted in plain, intelligible language, so that the term concerning the cost of that credit may then be assessed by that court as to whether it may be unfair within the meaning of Article3 of the latter directive.

65

First of all, it should be noted that, bearing in mind the date on which the credit agreement at issue in the main proceedings was concluded and the details set out in paragraph11 of this order, this question must be answered in the light of Directive 87/102 and not Directive 2008/48.
I - 11590

POHOTOVOS
66

In that regard, the Court has previously ruled that the objective pursued by Directive87/102 consists in ensuring that a minimum standard of consumer protection in matters of consumer credit is complied with (Case C-429/05 Rampion and Godard [2007] ECR I-8017, paragraph47, and Case C-509/07 Scarpelli [2009] ECR I-3311, paragraph25). That directive, as is clear from Article15 thereof and from the 25th recital in the preamble thereto, according to which the directive does not prevent Member States from maintaining or adopting stricter provisions for the protection of consumers, provides for only minimum harmonisation of the provisions of national law relating to consumer credit (Rampion and Godard, cited above, paragraph18).

67

The Court has also repeatedly found that, as is clear from the recitals in the preamble thereto, Directive 87/102 was adopted with the dual aim of ensuring both the creation of a common consumer credit market (3rd to5th recitals) and the protection of consumers who avail themselves of such credit (6th, 7th and9th recitals) (Case C-208/98 Berliner Kindl Brauerei [2000] ECR I-1741, paragraph20, and Case C-264/02 Conoga [2004] ECR I-2157, paragraph25).

68

It is with a view to protecting the consumer against unfair credit terms and to enabling him to have full knowledge of the terms of the future performance of the agreement entered into that Article4 of Directive 87/102 provides that, at the time of concluding such an agreement, the borrower must have to hand all information which could have a bearing on the implications of his undertaking (Berliner Kindl Brauerei, cited above, paragraph21).

69

Article4(1) and(2) of Directive 87/102 provides that the credit agreement must be made in writing and that the written agreement must include a statement of the APR and the conditions under which it may be amended. Article1a of that directive lays down the methods of calculation of the APR and stipulates, in paragraph4(a), that it is to be calculated at the time the credit contract is concluded (see, to that eect, Conoga, cited above, paragraph23).
I - 11591

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10


70

Informing the consumer of the total cost of credit, in the form of an interest rate calculated according to a single mathematical formula, is of critical importance in this regard. First, this information, which, under Article3 of Directive 87/102, must be stated in any advertising, contributes to the transparency of the market, as it enables the consumer to compare oers of credit. Secondly, it enables the consumer to assess the extent of his liability (Conoga, cited above, paragraph26).

71

Consequently, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the failure to mention the APR in the credit agreement at issue, the mention of the APR being essential information in the context of Directive 87/102, may be a decisive factor in the assessment by a national court of whether a term of a credit agreement concerning the cost of that credit in which no such mention is made is written in plain, intelligible language within the meaning of Article4 of Directive 93/13.

72

If that is not the case, a national court is empowered to assess the unfair nature of such a term within the meaning of Article3 of Directive 93/13. Even if such a term may be assessed as falling within the scope of the exclusion referred to in that article, it should be observed that the terms referred to in Article4(2) of that directive, while they come within the area covered by Directive 93/13, escape the assessment as to whether they are unfair only in so far as the national court having jurisdiction should form the view, following a case-by-case examination, that they were drafted by the seller or supplier in plain, intelligible language (see Case C-484/08 Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid [2010] ECR I-4785, paragraph32).

73

In the main proceedings, an examination of the unfair nature of the term of the credit agreement which fails to mention the APR could also be considered in the light of Directive 93/13 and, in that regard, as was found in paragraph53 of this order, the national court has the power to examine such a term of its own motion. In such a situation, as was observed in paragraph60 of this order, it is for the national court to
I - 11592

POHOTOVOS

assess whether, in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract at issue in the main proceedings, the failure to mention the APR in a term of a consumer credit contract concerning the cost of that credit is likely to confer on that term an unfair nature within the meaning of Articles3 and4 of Directive 93/13.

74

However, it follows from the information supplied by the national court that, in accordance with Article4 of Act No258/2001, which transposes Directive87/102, a consumer credit contract must mention the APR and, in the absence of such mention, the consumer credit granted is deemed to be interest-free and free of charge.

75

Article14 of that directive requires Member States to ensure that credit agreements do not derogate, to the detriment of the consumer, from the provisions of national law implementing or corresponding to that directive.

76

Consequently, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, without its being necessary to examine the unfair nature of the term which fails to mention the APR in the light of Directive 93/13, Directive 87/102 is to be interpreted as allowing national courts to apply of their own motion the provisions transposing Article4 of that directive into national law and as providing that the failure to mention the APR in a consumer credit contract means that the credit granted is deemed to be interestfree and free of charge (see, by analogy, as regards Article11(2) of Directive 87/102, Rampion and Godard, cited above, paragraph69).

77

Accordingly, the answer to the rst question is that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the failure to mention the APR in a consumer credit contract, the mention of the APR being essential information in the context of Directive 87/102, may be a decisive factor in the assessment by a national court of whether a
I - 11593

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

term of a consumer credit agreement concerning the cost of that credit in which no such mention is made is written in plain, intelligible language within the meaning of Article4 of Directive 93/13. If that is not the case, that court has the power to assess, of its own motion, whether, in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of that contract, the failure to mention the APR in the term of that contract concerning the cost of that credit is likely to confer on that term an unfair nature within the meaning of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 93/13. However, notwithstanding the power which is given to assess that contract in the light of Directive 93/13, Directive 87/102 is to be interpreted as allowing national courts to apply of their own motion the provisions transposing Article4 of the latter directive into national law and as providing that the failure to mention the APR in a consumer credit contract means that the credit granted is deemed to be interest-free and free of charge.

The third question

78

By this question, the national court asks whether, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, and in so far as it reaches the conclusion that the provisions of Directives 87/102 and93/13 have not been complied with, it has the power, under the European Unions consumer protection rules, to discontinue or limit the enforcement of a denitive arbitration award adopted under an arbitration clause set out in the credit agreement.

79

In that regard, it must be observed that, under Article267 TFEU, the Court has no power to apply rules of European Union law to a particular case, but only to rule on
I - 11594

POHOTOVOS

the interpretation of the Treaty and of acts adopted by European Union institutions (Case C-291/03 MyTravel [2005] ECR I-8477, paragraph43 and the case-law cited).

80

By the present question, the national court is asking the Court of Justice to indicate to it whether, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, taking account of the replies given by the Court to the rst and second questions, it may, under European Union law and national law, limit the enforcement of the denitive arbitration award at issue in the main proceedings solely to the outstanding amount payable under the consumer credit agreement.

81

In so far as the reply to that question would involve the Court ruling on the actual application to the facts of the case at issue of the rules of law interpreted in the context of the rst two questions and, in any event, on the basis of the replies given to those questions, the national court has available to it the means of interpretation necessary to resolving the dispute before it, there is no need to reply to this question.

Costs

82

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court of Justice, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
I - 11595

ORDER OF 16. 11. 2010 CASE C-76/10

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts requires a national court, hearing an application for enforcement of a nal arbitral award issued by default and without the participation of the consumer, of its own motion, where the necessary information on the legal and factual state of aairs is available to it for this purpose, to consider the fairness of the penalty contained in a credit agreement concluded by a creditor with a consumer, that penalty having been applied in that award, where, according to national procedural rules, such an assessment may be conducted in similar proceedings under national law.

2. It is for the national court concerned to determine whether a term in a credit agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings providing, according to the ndings of that court, for the consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation, must, in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Articles3 and4 of Directive93/13. If that is the case, it is for that court to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that term.

3. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the failure to mention the annual percentage rate in a consumer credit contract, the mention of the annual percentage rate being essential information in the context of Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European
I - 11596

POHOTOVOS

Parliament and of the Council of 16February 1998, may be a decisive factor in the assessment by a national court of whether a term of a consumer credit agreement concerning the cost of that credit in which no such mention is made is written in plain, intelligible language within the meaning of Article4 of Directive 93/13. If that is not the case, that court has the power to assess, of its own motion, whether, in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of that contract, the failure to mention the annual percentage rate in the term of that contract concerning the cost of that credit is likely to confer on that term an unfair nature within the meaning ofArticles3 and4 of Directive 93/13. However, notwithstanding the power which is given to assess that contract in the light of Directive 93/13, Directive 87/102 is to be interpreted as allowing national courts to apply of their own motion the provisions transposing Article4 of the latter directive into national law and as providing that the failure to mention the annual percentage rate in a consumer credit contract means that the credit granted is deemed to be interest-free and free of charge.

[Signatures]

I - 11597

POHOTOVOS

UZNESENIE SDNEHO DVORA (sma komora) zo16.novembra 2010 *

Vo veci C-76/10,

ktorej predmetom je nvrh na zaatie prejudicilneho konania poda lnku267ZFE, podan na zklade rozhodnutia Krajskho sdu v Preove (Slovensk republika) z19.janura 2010 adoruen Sdnemu dvoru 9.februra 2010, ktor svis skonanm:

Pohotovos s.r.o.

proti

Ivete Korkovskej,

* Jazyk konania: slovenina.

I - 11561

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

SDNY DVOR (sma komora),

v zloen: L. Bay Larsen, vykonvajci funkciu predsedu smej komory, sudkyne C.Toader (spravodajkya) aA.Prechal,

generlny advokt: N.Jskinen, tajomnk: A.Calot Escobar,

so zreteom na to, e Sdny dvor m vslade slnkom104 ods.3 prvm pododsekom svojho rokovacieho poriadku vmysle rozhodn odvodnenm uznesenm,

po vypout generlneho advokta,

vydal toto

Uznesenie

Nvrh na zaatie prejudicilneho konania sa tka vkladu smernice Rady 93/13/EHS z5.aprla 1993 onekalch podmienkach vspotrebiteskch zmluvch (. v. ES L95, s.29; Mim. vyd. 15/002, s.288) vspojen sprvnou pravou nie uplatnitenou na zmluvy ospotrebiteskom vere.
I - 11562

POHOTOVOS
2

Tento nvrh bol podan vrmci sporu medzi spolonosou Pohotovos s.r.o. (alej len Pohotovos) aIvetou Korkovskou vo veci ntenho vkonu rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia, ktor jej uklad povinnos zaplati uvedenej spolonosti na zklade ustanoven zmluvy overe vo vke 20 000SKK (663,88eura), uzavretej medzi tmito astnkmi, sumu 48 820SKK (1 620,53eura), ako aj roky zomekania atrovy konania.

Prvny rmec

Prvna prava nie

Smernica 87/102/EHS

Dvadsiatepiate odvodnenie smernice Rady 87/102/EHS z22.decembra 1986 oaproximcii zkonov, inch prvnych predpisov a sprvnych opatren lenskch ttov, ktor sa tkaj spotrebiteskhoveru (. v. ES L42, 1987, s.48; Mim. vyd. 15/001, s. 326), zmenenej a doplnenej smernicou Eurpskeho parlamentu a Rady 98/7/ES zo 16. februra 1998 (. v. ES L 101, s. 17; Mim. vyd. 15/004, s. 36, alej len smernica 87/102) znie:

kee vzhadom kuritmu stupu aproximcie prvnych predpisov, nariaden aadministratvnych ustanoven lenskch ttov, ktor tto smernica ustanovuje aktor sa tkaj spotrebiteskho veru auritej rovne ochrany spotrebitea, nemalo by sa
I - 11563

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

lenskm ttom brni ponecha si alebo prija prsnejie opatrenia kochrane spotrebitea vsvislosti sich zvzkami, ktor vyplvaj zo zmluvy.

lnok1 smernice 87/102 stanovuje:

1. Tto smernica plat pre verov zmluvy.

2. Na ely tejto smernice:

a) spotrebite je fyzick osoba, ktor pri transakcich pokrytch touto smernicou vykonva innos na ely, ktor sa nachdzaj mimo jeho obchodnej innosti aprofesie;

b) verite je fyzick alebo prvnick osoba, ktor poskytuje ver vrmci svojho obchodu, pracovnej innosti alebo profesie, alebo je to skupina takchto osb;

c) verov zmluva je dohoda, ktorou verite poskytuje alebo prisubuje poskytn spotrebiteovi ver vo forme odloenej platby, piky i inej podobnej nannej vpomoci.

I - 11564

POHOTOVOS

d) celkov verov nklady pre spotrebitea s vetky nklady, vrtane roku ainch poplatkov, ktor mus spotrebite zaplati za ver;

e) ron percentulnu mieru predstavuj celkov verov nklady pre spotrebitea vyjadren vo forme ronho percentulneho podielu zhodnoty poskytnutho veru avypotan vslade slnkom1a.

lnok1a tejto smernice stanovuje:

1. a) Ron percentulna miera, ktor sa na ronom zklade rovn sasnej hodnote vetkch sasnch alebo budcich zvzkov (piiek, spltok apoplatkov) dohodnutch medzi veriteom adlnkom, sa vypota poda matematickho vzorca uvedenho vprloheII.

b) tyri prklady metdy vpotu s uveden vprloheIII ako vzor.

2. Scieom vpotu ronej percentulnej miery sa uria celkov verov nklady pre spotrebitea tak, ako s denovan vlnku1 ods.2 psm.d) svnimkou nasledujcich vdavkov:

i)

nklady, ktor plat dlnk za nedodranie niektorho zo svojich zvzkov stanovench vzmluve overe;

I - 11565

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

iii) poplatky za prevod peaz apoplatky za vedenie tu urenho pre prjem platieb na splcanie veru, roku ainch poplatkov, svnimkou prpadov, ke spotrebite nem vo veci riadnu slobodu voby ake s tieto poplatky mimoriadne vysok; toto ustanovenie sa vak nevzahuje na poplatky za vber takchto spltok, i platieb nezvisle od toho, i sa realizuje vhotovosti, alebo inm spsobom;

4. a. Ron percentulna miera sa vypota vdobe uzatvrania zmluvy overe bez toho, aby boli dotknut ustanovenia lnku3 oreklame azvltnych ponukch.

b.

Vpoet sa zrealizuje za predpokladu, e zmluva overe je platn pre dohodnut obdobie ae verite aspotrebite dodriavaj svoje zvzky za dohodnutch podmienok avdohodnutch lehotch.

6. Vprpade verovch zmlv obsahujcich klauzuly povoujce odchlky vrokovej miere avo vke alebo rovni inch platieb obsiahnutch vronej percentulnej miere, avak nevysliten vdobe vpotu tejto miery, sa ron percentulna miera vypota spredpokladom, e rok ain platby zostvaj pevne stanoven abud sa uplatova a do ukonenia platnosti zmluvy overe.

I - 11566

POHOTOVOS
6

lnok4 smernice 87/102 stanovuje:

1. verov zmluva m psomn formu. Spotrebite dostane jedno vyhotovenie psomnej zmluvy.

2. Psomn zmluva zaha:

a) vyjadrenie ronej percentulnej miery poplatkov;

b) vyjadrenie podmienok, za ktorch me by ron percentulna miera poplatkov pozmenen;

c) daje ovke, pote afrekvencii alebo dtumoch platieb, ktor mus spotrebite zrealizova scieom splcania veru, ako aj rokovch platieb ainch poplatkov; poda monosti sa uvedie aj celkov iastka tchto platieb;

d) daje o nkladovch polokch uvedench v lnku 1a ods. 2, s vnimkou vdavkov spojench s poruenm zmluvnch zvzkov, ktor neboli zahrnut do vpotu ronej percentulnej miery, ale ktor mus spotrebite za danch okolnost zaplati, spolu so pecikciou tchto okolnost. Vprpadoch, ke je znma presn vka tchto poloiek, mus sa tto hodnota uvies; vopanom prpade sa poda monosti uvedie metda vpotu alebo o najpresnej odhad.
I - 11567

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

Vprpadoch, kde nie je mon stanovi ron percentulnu mieru poplatkov, bude spotrebite v psomnej zmluve primerane informovan. Tieto informcie obsahuj prinajmenom podklady uveden vdruhej zarke lnku6 ods.1.

[neocilny preklad]

lnok6 ods.1 a2 smernice 87/102 stanovuje:

1. Napriek vyleniu ustanovenom vlnku2 ods.1 psm.e), ak ide ozmluvu medzi verovou i nannou intitciou aspotrebiteom na poskytnutie veru formou zlohy na ben et inak ne na kreditn karetn ty, bude spotrebite vase pred uzatvorenm zmluvy alebo vase jej uzatvrania informovan:

overovom limite, ak je stanoven,

oronej rokovej sadzbe apoplatkoch platnch od doby, ke je zmluva uzatvoren apodmienkach, za ktorch me by zmenen adoplnen,

opostupe oukonen zmluvy.

Tto informcia sa potvrdzuje psomne.


I - 11568

POHOTOVOS

2. Navye po dobu platnosti zmluvy je spotrebite informovan oakchkovek zmench ronej rokovej sadzby alebo zodpovedajcich poplatkov ihne, ako sa vyskytn. Takto informcie mu by oznmen vpisom ztu alebo ubovolnm inm spsobom prijatenm vlenskch ttoch.

lnok14 tejto smernice stanovuje:

1. lensk tty zabezpeia, e verov zmluvy nezniuj [neporuujneocilny preklad], na kodu spotrebitea, ustanovenia vntrottnych prvnych predpisov, ktor vyplvaj alebo s vzhode stouto smernicou.

2. lensk tty taktie zabezpeia, aby sa ustanovenia, ktor prijm na vykonanie tejto smernice, neobchdzali vdsledku formulcie dohd, najm vak formou rozdelenia iastky veru do niekokch dohd.

lnok15 tejto smernice uvdza:

Tto smernica nezamedzuje lenskm ttom, aby udriavali a prijmali prsnejie ustanovenia k ochrane spotrebiteov konzistentn s ich zvzkami, ktor vyplvaj zo zmluvy.
I - 11569

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

Smernica 2008/48/ES

10

Smernica Eurpskeho parlamentu aRady 2008/48/ES z23.aprla 2008 ozmluvch ospotrebiteskom vere aozruen smernice Rady 87/102/EHS (.v.EL133, s.66) upravuje veobecn povinnos veritea informova spotrebitea pred uzavretm zmluvy, ako aj vzmluve overe oniektorch dajoch vrtane ronej percentulnej miery nkladov (alej len RPMN). PrlohaItejto smernice upravuje harmonizovan metdu vpotu RPMN.

11

Vslade slnkami 27 a29 smernice 2008/48 lehota na prebratie tejto smernice uplynula 12.mja 2010, ku du, ku ktormu bola smernica 87/102 zruen.

Smernica 93/13

12

lnok3 smernice 93/13 stanovuje:

1. Zmluvn podmienka, ktor nebola individulne dohodnut, sa povauje za nekal, ak napriek poiadavke dvery [dobrej viery neocilny preklad] spsob znan nerovnovhu vprvach apovinnostiach strn vzniknutch na zklade zmluvy, ku kode spotrebitea.
I - 11570

POHOTOVOS

2. Podmienka sa nepovauje za individulne dohodnut, ak bola navrhnut vopred aspotrebite preto nebol schopn ovplyvni podstatu podmienky, najm vsvislosti spredbene formulovanou tandardnou zmluvou.

Skutonos, e urit aspekty podmienky alebo jedna konkrtna podmienka boli individulne dohodnut, nevyluuje uplatovanie tohto lnku na zvyok zmluvy, ak celkov hodnotenie zmluvy naznauje, e aj napriek tomu ide opredbene formulovan tandardn zmluvu.

Ke predajca alebo dodvate vznesie nmietku, e tandardn podmienka bola individulne dohodnut, mus otom poda dkaz.

3. Prloha obsahuje indikatvny anevyerpvajci zoznam podmienok, ktor sa mu povaova za nekal.

13

lnok4 tejto smernice stanovuje:

1. Bez toho, aby boli dotknut ustanovenia lnku7, nekalos zmluvnch podmienok sa hodnot so zreteom na povahu tovaru alebo sluieb, na ktor bola zmluva uzatvoren ana vetky okolnosti svisiace suzatvorenm zmluvy, vdobe uzatvorenia zmluvy ana vetky ostatn podmienky zmluvy alebo na in zmluvu, od ktorej zvis.

2. Hodnotenie nekalej povahy podmienok sa nevzahuje ani k dencii hlavnho predmetu zmluvy ani na primeran cenu ahradu na jednej strane, ako aj tovar alebo sluby dodvan vmennm spsobom na druhej strane, pokia tieto podmienky s zrozumiten.
I - 11571

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10


14

lnok5 tejto smernice znie:

Vprpade zmlv, vktorch s vetky alebo niektor podmienky ponkan spotrebiteovi vpsomnej forme, musia by vdy tieto podmienky vypracovan zrozumitene. Ke existuje pochybnos o zmysle podmienky, prednos m vklad priaznivej pre spotrebitea. Toto pravidlo vkladu neplat vsvislosti spostupmi stanovenmi vlnku7 ods.2.

15

Poda lnku 6 ods. 1 tej istej smernice lensk tty zabezpeia, aby nekal podmienky pouit vzmluvch uzatvorench so spotrebiteom zo strany predajcu alebo dodvatea poda ich vntrottneho prva, neboli zvzn pre spotrebitea aaby zmluva bola poda tchto podmienok naalej zvzn pre strany, ak je jej alia existencia mon bez nekalch podmienok.

16

lnok7 smernice 93/13 stanovuje:

1. lensk tty zabezpeia, aby v zujme spotrebiteov a subjektov hospodrskej sae existovali primeran ainn prostriedky, ktor by zabrnili svislmu uplatovaniu nekalch podmienok v zmluvch uzatvorench so spotrebitemi zo strany predajcov alebo dodvateov.

2. Prostriedky uveden vodseku1 zahruj ustanovenia, poda ktorch osoby alebo organizcie soprvnenm zujmom poda prslunho vntrottneho prva na ochranu spotrebiteov mu poiada sdy alebo prslun sprvne orgny o rozhodnutie, i s zmluvn podmienky navrhovan pre veobecn uplatovanie nekal,
I - 11572

POHOTOVOS

take mu uplatni vhodn ainn prostriedky kzabrneniu alieho uplatovania takch podmienok.

3. So zreteom na vntrottne prvo sa mu prvne opravn prostriedky, uveden vodseku2, uplatova oddelene alebo spolu voi niekokm predajcom alebo dodvateom ztoho istho hospodrskeho sektoru alebo zich zdruen, ktor pouvaj alebo odporaj pouitie rovnakch veobecnch zmluvnch podmienok alebo podobnch podmienok.

17

Poda lnku8 smernice 93/13 lensk tty mu prija alebo si ponecha najprsnejie opatrenia kompatibiln so zmluvou v oblasti obsiahnutej touto smernicou scieom zabezpeenia maximlneho stupa ochrany spotrebitea.

18

Bod1 psm.e) prlohy tejto smernice tkajci sa podmienok uvedench vjej lnku3 ods.3 upravuje podmienky, ktorch zmyslom alebo inkom je: e) poadova od spotrebitea, ktor nesplnil svoj zvzok, aby zaplatil neprimerane vysok sumu ako nhradu.

Slovensk prvna prava

19

52 Obianskeho zkonnka stanovuje:

1. Spotrebiteskou zmluvou je kad zmluva bez ohadu na prvnu formu, ktor uzatvra dodvate so spotrebiteom.
I - 11573

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

2. Ustanovenia ospotrebiteskch zmluvch, ako aj vetky in ustanovenia upravujce prvne vzahy, ktorch astnkom je spotrebite, pouij sa vdy, ak je to na prospech zmluvnej strany, ktor je spotrebiteom. Odlin zmluvn dojednania alebo dohody, ktorch obsahom alebo elom je obchdzanie tohto ustanovenia, s neplatn.

4. Spotrebite je fyzick osoba, ktor pri uzatvran aplnen spotrebiteskej zmluvy nekon v rmci predmetu svojej obchodnej innosti alebo inej podnikateskej innosti.

20

53 tohto zkonnka stanovuje:

1. Spotrebitesk zmluvy nesm obsahova ustanovenia, ktor spsobuj znan nerovnovhu vprvach apovinnostiach zmluvnch strn vneprospech spotrebitea (alej len neprijaten podmienka). To neplat, ak ide ozmluvn podmienky, ktor sa tkaj hlavnho predmetu plnenia aprimeranosti ceny, ak tieto zmluvn podmienky s vyjadren urito, jasne azrozumitene alebo ak boli neprijaten podmienky individulne dojednan.

I - 11574

POHOTOVOS

4. Za neprijaten podmienky uveden vspotrebiteskej zmluve sa povauj najm ustanovenia, ktor

k) poaduj od spotrebitea, ktor nesplnil svoj zvzok, aby zaplatil neprimerane vysok sumu ako sankciu spojen snesplnenm jeho zvzku,

5. Neprijaten podmienky upraven vspotrebiteskch zmluvch s neplatn.

21

4 zkona . 258/2001 o spotrebiteskch veroch vo svojom znen uplatnitenom vrozhodnom ase stanovuje:

Zmluva ospotrebiteskom vere

1. Zmluva ospotrebiteskom vere mus ma psomn formu, inak je neplatn, priom spotrebite dostane jedno vyhotovenie zmluvy ospotrebiteskom vere.

2. Zmluva ospotrebiteskom vere okrem veobecnch nleitost mus obsahova

I - 11575

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

j)

ron percentulnu mieru nkladov a celkov nklady spotrebitea spojen so spotrebiteskm verom, vypotan na zklade dajov platnch vase uzatvorenia zmluvy ospotrebiteskom vere,

Ak vak zmluva o spotrebiteskom vere neobsahuje nleitosti poda odseku 2 psm. j), poskytnut ver sa povauje za bezron abez poplatkov.

22

45 zkona . 244/2002 o rozhodcovskom konan vo svojom znen uplatnitenom vrozhodnom ase stanovuje:

1. Sd prslun na vkon rozhodnutia alebo na exekciu poda osobitnch predpisov na nvrh astnka konania, proti ktormu bol nariaden vkon rozhodcovskho rozsudku, konanie ovkon rozhodnutia alebo exekun konanie zastav

c) ak rozhodcovsk rozsudok zavzuje astnka rozhodcovskho konania na plnenie, ktor je objektvne nemon, prvom nedovolen alebo odporuje dobrm mravom.
I - 11576

POHOTOVOS

2. Sd prslun na vkon rozhodnutia alebo na exekciu zastav vkon rozhodcovskho rozsudku alebo exekun konanie aj bez nvrhu, ak zist vrozhodcovskom konan nedostatky poda odseku1 psm.b) aleboc).

Spor vo veci samej aprejudicilne otzky

23

Iveta Korkovsk, zdravotne postihnut osoba, ktor pober invalidn dchodok vmesanej vke pribline 370eur, podpsala 26.februra 2008 so spolonosou Pohotovos zmluvu overe, ktorej veobecn podmienky boli nasledujce. Poskytnut ver predstavoval sumu 20 000 SKK (663,88 eura) apoplatky vzahujce sa na ver predstavovali sumu 19 120 SKK (634,67 eura). Iveta Korkovsk bola povinn splati istinu a poplatky v lehote jednho roka v mesanch spltkach 3 260 SKK (108,21 eura). Poda vntrottneho sdu tak RPMN tohto veru predstavovala a 95,6 %, ako tak vak nebola tto miera nijako uveden ani vo veobecnch podmienkach verov poskytnutch spolonosou Pohotovos, ani vuzavretej zmluve overe.

24

Poda lnku4 veobecnch podmienok ak sa dlnk omek aspo iastone sdvoma po sebe idcimi spltkami, stva sa cel dlh okamite splatn. Okrem toho vtakom prpade lnok 6 tchto veobecnch podmienok upravuje platenie dennch rokov zomekania vo vke 0,25 % dlnej sumy aplyncich odo da splatnosti dlhu a do jeho plnho splatenia. Takto sankcia zodpoved ronej sadzbe 91,25 %. Vntrottny sd vtejto svislosti uvdza, e poda slovenskho prva sankcie upraven pre obianskoprvne veci vo forme rokov zomekania nesm prekroi zkladn rokov sadzbu Eurpskej centrlnej banky, ktor je vsasnosti 1 %, zven o8 %, teda celkovo 9 %.
I - 11577

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10


25

lnok 17 tch istch veobecnch podmienok stanovuje, e spory vzniknut zo zmluvy overe rozhoduje bu Stly rozhodcovsk sd so sdlom vBratislave, alebo vecne prslun vntrottny sd na zklade voby zmluvnej strany, ktor podva alobu. Okrem toho poda ich lnku19 sa vetky vzahy medzi veriteom adlnkom riadia Obchodnm zkonnkom a nie Obianskym zkonnkom. Vntrottny sd dopa, e zmluva dotknut vo veci samej obsahovala splnomocnenie udelen advoktovi na zastupovanie I.Korkovskej.

26

Vzhadom na to, e I.Korkovsk nesplatila dve po sebe idce spltky, Pohotovos sa 9.oktbra 2008 obrtila na Stly rozhodcovsk sd, ktor 3.novembra 2008 vydal rozhodcovsk rozhodnutie ukladajce dotknutej osobe povinnos zaplati tejto spolonosti najm sumu 48 820SKK (1 620,53eura), ako aj roky zomekania vo vke 39 120SKK (1 298,55eura) atrovy konania vsume 9 928SKK (329,55eura).Totorozhodnutie nadobudlo prvoplatnos 15. decembra 2008 a vykonatenos 18.decembra 2008.

27

Na zklade tohto rozhodnutia 9. marca 2009 poiadal exektor Okresn sd Star ubova oudelenie poverenia na vykonanie exekcie na sumu 3 467 eur. Uznesenm z31.jla 2009 tento sd preruil exekun konanie, poukazujc na poruenie dobrch mravov, pokia ide otrovy prvneho zastupovania alobcu vexekunom konan, ktor prekroili sumu 94,61eura, apokia ide oroky zomekania vo vke 0,25 % denne zo sumy 1 298,52eura plynce od 21.jla 2008 a do zniku dlhu.

28

Pohotovos podala 26.augusta 2009 odvolanie proti tomuto uzneseniu na Krajsk sd vPreove. Krajsk sd pripustil, aby Asocicia spotrebiteskch subjektov Slovenska (alej len asocicia) predloila na podporu I.Korkovskej vyjadrenie, vktorom tento sd najm informovala ovekom pote exekunch konan zaatch spolonosou
I - 11578

POHOTOVOS

Pohotovos na Slovensku. Asocicia sa domnieva, e veobecn podmienky verov poskytnutch touto spolonosou obsahuj nekal podmienky apredstavuj nekal obchodn praktiky, aztohto dvodu navrhla vntrottnemu sdu obrti sa na Sdny dvor na zklade lnku267ZFE.

29

Krajsk sd vPreove, ktor sa okrem inho domnieval, e podanie asocicie obsahuje skutonosti, oktorch mus rozhodn aj bez nvrhu, rozhodol opreruen konania apoloil Sdnemu dvoru tieto prejudicilne otzky:

1. a) Je daj o celkovch nkladoch spotrebitea v percentulnych bodoch ( RPMN) natoko dleit, e ak nie je v zmluve uveden, nemono povaova cenu spotrebiteskho veru za transparentn a dostatone jasn azrozumiten?

b) Je rmec ochrany spotrebitea, ktor zabezpeuje smernica 93/13 tak, e umouje oznai za nekal podmienku vzmluve ospotrebiteskom vere aj cenu pre nedostaton transparentnos azrozumitenos, ak vzmluve absentuje daj v percentulnych bodoch o celkovch nkladoch na spotrebitesk ver acena je vyjadren len peanou sumou zloenou zviacerch poplatkov uvedench jednak vzmluve ajednak vo Veobecnch obchodnch podmienkach?

2. a) i smernica 93/13 mus by vykladan vtom zmysle, e vntrottny sd, ktor rozhoduje o nvrhu na nten vkon prvoplatnho rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia, vydanho bez asti spotrebitea, mus, pokia m na tento el kdispozcii nevyhnutn informcie oprvnom askutkovom stave, aj bez nI - 11579

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

vrhu posdi neprimeranos sankcie obsiahnutej vzmluve overe uzavretej poskytovateom veru so spotrebiteom, ak je poda vntrottnych procesnch pravidiel mon vykona tak posdenie vrmci obdobnch konan na zklade vntrottneho prva?

b) Ak ide oneprimeran sankciu za poruenie zvzkov spotrebitea, prislcha tomuto sdu vyvodi vetky dsledky, ktor ztoho vyplvaj poda vntrottneho prva, aby sa uistil, e tento spotrebite nebude uvedenou sankciou viazan?

c) i sankcia 0,25 % denne z dlnej sumy veru, t. j. 91,25 % rone, me by posden ako nekal podmienka pre jej neprimeranos?

3. i rmec ochrany spotrebitea pri aplikcii noriem nie (smernica 93/13, smernica 2008/48 aozruen smernice 87/102) pri zmluvch ospotrebiteskom vere je tak, e ak sa poda zmluvy obili predpisy uren na ochranu spotrebitea pri veroch pre spotrebiteov aak u na zklade takejto zmluvy je podan nvrh na vkon rozhodnutia na zklade rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia, sd exekciu zastav alebo povol exekciu na nklady veritea len do vky nezaplatenej asti poskytnutho veru, ak je mon poda vntrottnych pravidiel takto posdenie rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia vykona asd mal kdispozcii nevyhnutn informcie oskutkovom aprvnom stave veci?
I - 11580

POHOTOVOS

Oprejudicilnych otzkach

30

Poda lnku104 ods.3 prvho pododseku Rokovacieho poriadku Sdneho dvora, ak me by odpove na prejudicilnu otzku jednoznane vyvoden zjudikatry, me Sdny dvor po vypout generlneho advokta kedykovek rozhodn odvodnenm uznesenm.

31

Sdny dvor zastva nzor, e otakto prpad ide aj vtejto veci.

Oprpustnosti

32

Pohotovos vo svojich psomnch pripomienkach na jednej strane uvdza, e odpovede na niektor zprejudicilnych otzok mu by poskytnut uznesenm prijatm na zklade lnku104 ods.3rokovacieho poriadku. Na druhej strane najm uvdza, e prv atretia otzka sa netkaj vkladu prva nie ae vo veobecnosti vntrottny sd nedodral svoju povinnos riei otzky vntrottneho prva pred obrtenm sa na Sdny dvor poda mechanizmu upravenho vlnku267ZFE.

33

Vtejto svislosti sta pripomen, e aj ke me by za uritch okolnost vhodn, aby boli otzky tkajce sa vlune vntrottneho prva vokamihu predloenia nvrhu na zaatie prejudicilneho konania Sdnemu dvoru vyrieen, vntrottne sdy maj nim neobmedzen monos obrti sa na Sdny dvor, ak sa domnievaj, e vec, ktor prejednvaj, nastouje otzky tkajce sa vkladu alebo posdenia platnosti ustanoven prva nie, ktor vyaduj rozhodnutie zich strany (rozsudok
I - 11581

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

Sdneho dvora z22.jna 2010, Melki aAbdeli, C-188/10 aC-189/10, Zb. s.I-5667, bod41 acitovan judikatra).

34

Pokia ide oprejudicilne otzky formulovan vntrottnym sdom, je nutn kontatova, e sa tkaj vkladu prva nie.

35

Vdsledku toho je opodstatnen na tieto otzky poloen Krajskm sdom vPreove odpoveda.

Odruhej otzke psm.a)

36

Svojou druhou otzkou psm.a), ktor treba preskma vprvom rade, sa vntrottny sd pta, i poda smernice 93/13 vntrottny sd, ktor rozhoduje onvrhu na nten vkon prvoplatnho rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia, vydanho bez asti spotrebitea, mus, ak m na tento el k dispozcii nevyhnutn informcie o prvnom askutkovom stave, aj bez nvrhu posdi nekal povahu sankcie obsiahnutej vzmluve o vere uzavretej poskytovateom veru so spotrebiteom a uplatnenej v tomto rozhodnut, ak je poda vntrottnych procesnch pravidiel mon vykona tak posdenie vrmci obdobnch konan na zklade vntrottneho prva.

37

Poda ustlenej judikatry systm ochrany zaveden smernicou 93/13 vychdza z mylienky, e spotrebite sa v porovnan s predajcom alebo dodvateom nachdza v znevhodnenom postaven, pokia ide o vyjednvaciu silu, ako aj o rove
I - 11582

POHOTOVOS

informovanosti, a tto situcia ho vedie k pristpeniu na podmienky pripraven vopred predajcom bez toho, aby mohol vplva na ich obsah (rozsudky z 27. jna 2000, Ocano Grupo Editorial aSalvat Editores, C-240/98 a C-244/98, Zb. s.I-4941, bod25, ako aj z26.oktbra 2006, Mostaza Claro, C-168/05, Zb. s.I-10421, bod25).

38

Vzhadom na tto situciu znevhodnenho postavenia lnok 6 ods. 1 smernice 93/13 stanovuje, e nekal podmienky nie s pre spotrebitea zvzn. Ako vyplva zjudikatry, ide okogentn ustanovenie, ktor smeruje knahradeniu formlnej rovnovhy, ktor zmluva nastouje medzi prvami apovinnosami zmluvnch strn, skutonou rovnovhou, ktor medzi nimi me znovu zavies rovnos (rozsudky Mostaza Claro, u citovan, bod 36, a zo 4. jna 2009, Pannon GSM, C-243/08, Zb. s.I-4713, bod25).

39

S cieom zabezpei rove ochrany, ktor chce smernica 93/13 dosiahnu, Sdny dvor viackrt zdraznil, e nerovn stav medzi spotrebiteom apredajcom alebo dodvateom me by kompenzovan iba pozitvnym zsahom, vonkajm vo vzahu ksamotnm astnkom zmluvy (rozsudky Ocano Grupo Editorial aSalvat Editores, u citovan, bod27; Mostaza Claro, u citovan, bod26, ako aj zo6.oktbra 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, C-40/08, Zb. s.I-9579, bod31).

40

Vo svetle tchto zsad Sdny dvor rozhodol, e vntrottny sd m aj bez nvrhu posudzova nekal povahu zmluvnej podmienky (rozsudok Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod32).

41

Monos sdu skma aj bez nvrhu nekal povahu podmienky predstavuje prostriedok vhodn na dosiahnutie vsledku stanovenho v lnku 6 smernice 93/13, teda zabrnenie tomu, aby jednotliv spotrebite nebol viazan nekalou podmienkou, a zrove na dosiahnutie ciea stanovenho v lnku 7 tejto smernice, pretoe takto preskmanie me ma odradzujci inok smerujci kukoneniu pouvania nekalch podmienok v zmluvch uzavretch so spotrebitemi zo strany predajcov
I - 11583

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

alebo dodvateov (rozsudky z21.novembra 2002, Codis, C-473/00, Zb. s.I-10875, bod32, aMostaza Claro, u citovan, bod27).

42

Tto monos priznan sdu sa povauje za nevyhnutn na zabezpeenie innej ochrany spotrebitea, najm sohadom na nezanedbaten nebezpeenstvo, e tento spotrebite osvojich prvach nevie, alebo m akosti sich uplatnenm (rozsudky Codis, u citovan, bod33, ako aj Mostaza Claro, u citovan, bod28).

43

Ochrana, ktor smernica priznva spotrebiteom, sa tak vzahuje na prpady, vktorch sa spotrebite, ktor spredajcom alebo dodvateom uzavrel zmluvu obsahujcu nekal podmienku, zdr namietania nekalej povahy tejto podmienky zdvodu, e bu osvojich prvach nevie, alebo preto, e je odraden od ich uplatovania zdvodov nkladov, ktor by malo za nsledok sdne konanie (rozsudok Codis, u citovan, bod34).

44

Takto ochrana je odvodnen oto viac, ak, ako sa zrejme domnieva vntrottny sd vo svojom nvrhu na zaatie prejudicilneho konania, zmluva overe, oktor ide vo veci samej, obsahuje splnomocnenie udelen advoktovi zvolenmu veriteom na zastupovanie spotrebitea ako dlnka, priom dlnk si me zvoli inho advokta iba vprpade, ak zaplat zmluvn pokutu predstavujcu 15 % zo sumy veru.

45

Poda judikatry Sdneho dvora prvo nie neuklad vntrottnemu sdu povinnos neuplatni vntrottne procesn normy, na ktorch zklade nadobda rozhodnutie, akm je rozhodcovsk rozhodnutie, prvoplatnos, napriek tomu, e by sa tm umonila zjedna nprava pri poruen ustanovenia prva nie, bez ohadu na jeho
I - 11584

POHOTOVOS

povahu, ku ktormu dolo vydanm predmetnho rozhodnutia (rozsudok Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod37).

46

Sd u mal prleitos spresni, e na to, aby sa zabezpeila tak stabilita prva aprvnych vzahov, ako aj riadny vkon spravodlivosti, je dleit, aby sa nemohli napadn sdne rozhodnutia, ktor sa stali konenmi po vyerpan dostupnch opravnch prostriedkov alebo po uplynut leht stanovench na podanie tchto opravnch prostriedkov (rozsudok Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod36 acitovan judikatra).

47

Rovnako ak neexistuje prvna prava nie vpredmetnej oblasti, podmienky vykonvania zsady prvoplatne rozhodnutej veci mus stanovi vntrottny prvny poriadok vslade so zsadou procesnej autonmie lenskch ttov. Tieto pravidl vak nesm by menej priazniv ako pravidl upravujce obdobn vntrottne konania (zsada ekvivalencie) ani nesm by naformulovan tak, aby vpraxi spsobili nemonos alebo nadmern saenie vkonu prv uznanch prvnym poriadkom nie (zsada efektivity) (rozsudok Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod38).

48

Pokia ide ozsadu ekvivalencie, tto zsada si vyaduje, aby podmienky stanoven vntrottnou prvnou pravou na uplatnenie ex oo pravidla prva nie neboli menej priazniv ako podmienky uplatnenia ex oo obdobnho pravidla rovnakej prvnej sily vo vntrottnom prve (rozsudok Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod49 acitovan judikatra).

49

Vtejto svislosti je vhodn spresni, e lnok6 ods.1 smernice 93/13 m kogentn povahu. Okrem toho treba zdrazni, e poda judikatry Sdneho dvora predmetn smernica ako celok predstavuje opatrenie nevyhnutn na splnenie poslania zverenho Eurpskej nii a, najm, na zvenie ivotnej rovne akvality ivota vcelej nii
I - 11585

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

(pozri rozsudky Mostaza Claro, u citovan, bod37, ako aj Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod51).

50

Vzhadom na povahu avznam veobecnho zujmu, na ktorom sa zaklad ochrana spotrebiteov, ktor smernica 93/13 zabezpeuje, jej lnok6 mus by povaovan za ustanovenie, ktor je rovnocenn svntrottnymi pravidlami, ktor vrmci vntrottneho prvneho poriadku maj prvnu silu noriem verejnho poriadku (rozsudok Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod52).

51

Zuvedenho predovetkm vyplva, e ak vntrottny sd, ktor rozhoduje onvrhu na nten vkon prvoplatnho rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia, mus poda vntrottnych procesnch pravidiel aj bez nvrhu preskma rozpor rozhodcovskej doloky svntrottnymi predpismi voblasti verejnho poriadku, mus takisto preskma aj bez nvrhu nekal povahu tejto doloky vsvislosti slnkom6 uvedenej smernice hne po tom, ako je sd oboznmen sprvnymi askutkovmi okolnosami potrebnmi na tento el (pozri vtomto zmysle rozsudky Pannon GSM, u citovan, bod32, ako aj Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, u citovan, bod53).

52

Vo veci samej sa zd, e poda informci poskytnutch vntrottnym sdom vntrottna prvna prava rozhodcovskho konania uklad sdu povinnos zastavi exekciu plnenia uloenho vrozhodcovskom rozhodnut, ak je takto plnenie zkonom zakzan alebo ak je vrozpore sdobrmi mravmi. Tento sd sa okrem toho domnieva, e akkovek neprijaten podmienka nachdzajca sa vzmluve uzavretej so spotrebiteom je v zmysle vntrottneho prva v rozpore s dobrmi mravmi, pretoe napriek existencii dobrej viery spsobuje znan nerovnovhu vprvach apovinnostiach predajcu alebo dodvatea aspotrebitea vneprospech poslednho uvedenho.
I - 11586

POHOTOVOS
53

Preto rovnako ako vkontexte veci, ktor viedla kvydaniu u citovanho rozsudku Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, vsitucii, ak je vo veci samej, ke sd, ktor rozhoduje onvrhu na nten vkon rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia, me zastavi aj bez nvrhu vkon tohto rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia, ak toto uklad dotknutej strane povinnos plnenia, ktor je objektvne nemon, prvom nedovolen alebo odporuje dobrm mravom, je tento sd povinn, pokia m na tento el kdispozcii nevyhnutn informcie oprvnom askutkovom stave, aj bez nvrhu posdi vrmci exekunho konania nekal povahu sankcie obsiahnutej vzmluve overe uzavretej poskytovateom veru so spotrebiteom.

54

Na druh otzku psm.a) treba preto odpoveda tak, e smernica 93/13 uklad vntrottnemu sdu, ktor rozhoduje onvrhu na nten vkon prvoplatnho rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia vydanho bez asti spotrebitea, povinnos aj bez nvrhu posdi nekal povahu sankcie obsiahnutej vzmluve overe uzavretej poskytovateom veru so spotrebiteom auplatnenej vtomto rozhodnut, ak tento sd m na tento el kdispozcii nevyhnutn informcie oprvnom askutkovom stave apoda vntrottnych procesnch pravidiel me uveden sd vykona takto posdenie vrmci obdobnch konan na zklade vntrottneho prva.

Odruhej otzke psm.b) ac)

55

Svojou druhou otzkou psm.b) ac) sa vntrottny sd na jednej strane pta, i podmienku obsiahnut vzmluve overe upravujcu pre prpad neplatenia dlhu zo strany spotrebitea denn sankciu vo vke 0,25 % zo sumy veru, teda 91,25 % ztejto sumy rone, mono povaova za nekal vzmysle lnkov 3 a4 smernice 93/13 zdvodu jej neprimeranosti ana druhej strane, vprpade kladnej odpovede, i m vntrottny
I - 11587

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

sd kontatujci tto neprimeranos rozhodn o neplatnosti tejto podmienky vo vzahu kspotrebiteovi.

56

Vtejto svislosti treba kontatova, e sodkazom na pojmy dobrej viery aznanej nerovnovhy vprvach apovinnostiach strn lnok3 smernice 93/13 iba veobecne denuje prvky nekalej zmluvnej podmienky, ktor nebola individulne dohodnut (pozri v tomto zmysle rozsudky zo 7. mja 2002, Komisia/vdsko, C-478/99, Zb. s. I-4147, bod 17, a z 1. aprla 2004, Freiburger Kommunalbauten, C-237/02, Zb. s.I-3403, bod19).

57

lnok3 ods.2 tejto smernice vak stanovuje, e podmienka sa nepovauje za individulne dohodnut, ak bola navrhnut vopred, a spotrebite preto nebol schopn ovplyvni podstatu podmienky, najm vsvislosti spredbene formulovanou tandardnou zmluvou, ako to zrejme bolo vo veci samej.

58

Prloha, na ktor odkazuje lnok3 ods.3 smernice 93/13, obsahuje indikatvny anevyerpvajci zoznam podmienok, ktor sa mu povaova za nekal, priom sa vbode1 psm.e) tejto prlohy medzi nimi nachdzaj tie podmienky, ktorch zmyslom alebo inkom je poadova od spotrebitea, ktor nesplnil svoj zvzok, aby zaplatil neprimerane vysok sumu ako nhradu.

59

Pokia ide ootzku, i osobitn zmluvn podmienka m, alebo nem nekal povahu, lnok4 smernice 93/13 uvdza, e odpoveda treba so zreteom na povahu tovaru alebo sluieb, ktor s predmetom zmluvy, ana vetky okolnosti svisiace suzatvorenm tejto zmluvnej podmienky vase uzavretia zmluvy. Je opodstatnen uvies, e
I - 11588

POHOTOVOS

vtomto kontexte treba tie posdi dsledky, ktor tto podmienka me ma vrmci prva uplatnitenho na zmluvu, o vsebe zaha preskmanie vntrottneho prvneho systmu (rozsudok Freiburger Kommunalbauten, u citovan, bod21).

60

Ztoho vyplva, e Sdny dvor me vrmci vkonu prvomoci vkladu prva nie, ktor mu je zveren vlnku267ZFE, vyklada veobecn kritri pouvan normotvorcom nie na ely denovania pojmu nekal podmienka. Naopak, neme sa vyjadri kuplatovaniu tchto veobecnch kritri na osobitn podmienku, ktor mus by skman vzvislosti od okolnost vlastnch konkrtnemu prpadu, aj ke je lohou vntrottneho sdu uri, i sa m zmluvn podmienka, ak je vo veci samej, upravujca poda zisten vntrottneho sdu nhradu vneprimerane vysokej vke, povaova za nekal vzhadom na vetky okolnosti tkajce sa uzavretia zmluvy (pozri vtomto zmysle rozsudok Freiburger Kommunalbauten, u citovan, body 22 a25).

61

Vdsledku toho ak tento sd dospeje kzveru, e podmienka dotknut vo veci samej je nekal vzmysle smernice 93/13, treba pripomen, e takto podmienka vslade slnkom6 ods.1 tejto smernice neme by zvzn pre spotrebitea za podmienok stanovench vntrottnym prvom ae navye poda toho istho ustanovenia mus uveden sd posdi, i zmluva me existova bez tejto prpadnej nekalej podmienky.

62

Vtakejto situcii je preto lohou tohto sdu vyvodi vetky dsledky, ktor ztoho vyplvaj poda vntrottneho prva scieom ubezpei sa, e spotrebite nie je viazan touto podmienkou (pozri vtomto zmysle rozsudok Asturcom Telecommunicaciones, u citovan, bod59).
I - 11589

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10


63

Vzhadom na vyie uveden vahy treba odpoveda na druh otzku psm.b) ac) tak, e je lohou dotknutho vntrottneho sdu uri, i sa m podmienka zmluvy overe, ak je vo veci samej, upravujca poda zisten tohto sdu sankciu vneprimerane vysokej vke na archu spotrebitea vzhadom na vetky okolnosti tkajce sa uzavretia tejto zmluvy povaova za nekal vzmysle lnkov 3 a4 smernice 93/13. V prpade kladnej odpovede je potom lohou uvedenho sdu vyvodi vetky dsledky, ktor ztoho vyplvaj poda vntrottneho prva, scieom ubezpei sa, e spotrebite nie je viazan touto podmienkou.

Oprvej otzke

64

Svojou prvou otzkou sa vntrottny sd vpodstate pta, i daj oRPMN vzmluve ospotrebiteskom vere, ako ho upravuje lnok4 ods.2 psm.a) smernice 87/102, predstavuje podstatn daj vtomto druhu zmlv avdsledku toho, i neexistencia tohto daja umouje vzmysle lnku4 ods.2 smernice 93/13 domnieva sa, e podmienky tejto zmluvy nie s uveden dostatone jasne azrozumitene, take podmienka tkajca sa nkladov tohto veru bude mc by posden tmto sdom, pokia ide ojej prpadne nekal povahu vzmysle lnku3 tejto poslednej uvedenej smernice.

65

Na vod treba uvies, e vzhadom na dtum uzavretia zmluvy overe dotknutej vo veci samej ana spresnenia uveden vbode11 tohto uznesenia teba odpoveda na tto prejudicilnu otzku zpohadu smernice 87/102 anie zpohadu smernice 2008/48.
I - 11590

POHOTOVOS
66

Sdny dvor vtejto svislosti u rozhodol, e el sledovan smernicou 87/102spova vzabezpeen dodriavania pravidla minimlnej ochrany spotrebiteov voblasti spotrebiteskho veru (rozsudky zo 4. oktbra 2007, Rampion a Godard, C-429/05, Zb. s.I-8017, bod47, ako aj z23.aprla 2009, Scarpelli, C-509/07, Zb. s.I-3311, bod25). Tto smernica toti, ako vyplva zjej lnku15 azjej dvadsiatehopiateho odvodnenia, poda ktorch tto smernica lenskm ttom nebrni, aby zachovali vplatnosti alebo prijmali prsnejie ustanovenia na ochranu spotrebiteov, stanovuje len minimlnu harmonizciu vntrottnych ustanoven tkajcich sa spotrebiteskho veru (rozsudok Rampion aGodard, u citovan, bod18).

67

Sdny dvor tie opakovane kontatoval, e smernica 87/102, ako vyplva zjej odvodnen, bola prijat na ely dosiahnutia dvoch cieov, ktormi s vytvorenie spolonho trhu voblasti spotrebiteskch verov (tretie a piate odvodnenie) na jednej strane aochrana spotrebiteov, ktor tieto verov zmluvy uzatvraj na strane druhej (ieste, siedme a deviate odvodnenie) (rozsudky z 23. marca 2000, Berliner Kindl Brauerei, C-208/98, Zb. s.I-1741, bod20, azo4.marca 2004, Conoga, C-264/02, Zb. s.I-2157, bod25).

68

Vtejto perspektve ochrany spotrebitea pred nespravodlivmi verovmi podmienkami ascieom umoni mu dozvedie sa ovetkch podmienkach budceho vkonu podpsanej zmluvy lnok4 smernice 87/102 vyaduje, aby mal dlnk pri uzavret zmluvy kdispozcii vetky informcie, ktor mu ma vplyv na rozsah jeho zvzku (rozsudok Berliner Kindl Brauerei, u citovan, bod21).

69

lnok4 ods.1 a2 smernice 87/102 stanovuje, e zmluva overe mus by uzavret psomne ae mus obsahova daj oRPMN, ako aj uvedenie podmienok, za ktorch me by tto miera zmenen. lnok1a tejto smernice stanovuje metdu vpotu RPMN avo svojom odseku4 psm.a) spresuje, e sa vypota vdobe uzatvrania zmluvy (pozri vtomto zmysle rozsudok Conoga, u citovan, bod23).
I - 11591

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10


70

Tto informcia spotrebitea ocelkovch nkladoch veru vo forme miery vypotanej poda jednotnho matematickho vzorca m preto podstatn vznam. Na jednej strane tto informcia, ktor mus by poda lnku3 smernice 87/102 oznmen u vtdiu inzercie, prispieva ktransparentnosti trhu vrozsahu, vakom spotrebiteovi umouje porovna ponuky verov. Na druhej strane mu umouje posdi rozsah jeho zvzku (rozsudok Conoga, u citovan, bod26).

71

Vdsledku toho vsitucii, ak je vo veci samej, neexistencia daja oRPMN vpredmetnej zmluve o vere, ktor m podstatn vznam v kontexte smernice 87/102, me predstavova rozhodujcu okolnos pre vntrottny sd vrmci jeho analzy otzky, i podmienka zmluvy overe tkajca sa jej nkladov, vktorej sa nenachdza takto daj, je zrozumiten vzmysle lnku4 smernice 93/13.

72

Ak nejde otakto prpad, vntrottny sd je oprvnen posdi nekal povahu takejto podmienky vzmysle lnku3 smernice 93/13. Aj ke tto podmienka me by analyzovan ako podmienka, na ktor sa vzahuje vylenie upraven vtomto lnku, treba pripomen, e podmienky upraven vlnku4 ods.2 tejto smernice patriace do oblasti upravenej smernicou 93/13, sa vymykaj posdeniu ich nekalej povahy len vrozsahu, vakom sa prslun vntrottny sd na zklade preskmania jednotlivch prpadov domnieva, e boli predajcom alebo dodvateom formulovan jasne azrozumitene (pozri rozsudok z3.jna 2010, Caja de Ahorros yMonte de Piedad de Madrid, C-484/08, Zb. s.I-4785, bod32).

73

Vo veci samej by preskmanie nekalej povahy podmienky zmluvy o vere, ktor neobsahuje daj o RPMN, mohlo prichdza do vahy z pohadu smernice 93/13 avzhadom na to, ako sa kontatovalo vbode53 tohto uznesenia, vntrottny sd m monos aj bez nvrhu posdi takto podmienku. Vtakejto situcii, ako sa pripomenulo v bode 60 tohto uznesenia, je lohou vntrottneho sdu posdi, i
I - 11592

POHOTOVOS

vzhadom na vetky okolnosti tkajce sa uzavretia zmluvy dotknutej vo veci samej me opomenutie RPMN vpodmienke zmluvy ospotrebiteskom vere tkajcej sa nkladov tohto veru spsobi nekalos tejto zmluvnej podmienky v zmysle lnkov3 a4 smernice 93/13.

74

Z informci poskytnutch vntrottnym sdom vak vyplva, e v slade s lnkom4 zkona .258/2001, ktor prebral smernicu 87/102, zmluva ospotrebiteskom vere mus obsahova daj oRPMN aak takto daj neobsahuje, poskytnut ver sa povauje za bezron abez poplatkov.

75

lnok14 tejto smernice uklad lenskm ttom povinnos zabezpei, aby verov zmluvy neporuovali na kodu spotrebitea ustanovenia vntrottnych prvnych predpisov, ktor vyplvaj alebo s vzhode stouto smernicou.

76

Vdsledku toho za okolnost, ak s vo veci samej, abez toho, aby bolo potrebn preskma zhadiska smernice 93/13 nekal povahu podmienky neuvdzajcej daj o RPMN, smernica 87/102 sa m vyklada v tom zmysle, e vntrottnemu sdu umouje aj bez nvrhu uplatni ustanovenia preberajce do vntrottneho prva lnok4 tejto poslednej uvedenej smernice astanovujce, e neexistencia daja oRPMN vzmluve ospotrebiteskom vere m za nsledok, e poskytnut ver sa povauje za bezron abez poplatkov (pozri analogicky, pokia ide olnok11 ods.2 smernice 87/102, rozsudok Rampion aGodard, u citovan, bod69).

77

V dsledku toho treba na prv otzku odpoveda tak, e za okolnost, ak s vo veci samej, neexistencia daja o RPMN v zmluve o spotrebiteskom vere, ktor m podstatn vznam v kontexte smernice 87/102, me predstavova rozhodujcu okolnos pre vntrottny sd vrmci jeho analzy otzky, i podmienka zmluvy
I - 11593

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

o spotrebiteskom vere tkajca sa jeho nkladov, v ktorej sa nenachdza takto daj, je zrozumiten vzmysle lnku4 smernice 93/13. Ak nejde otakto prpad, tento sd m monos aj bez nvrhu posdi, i vzhadom na vetky okolnosti tkajce sa uzavretia tejto zmluvy je opomenutie daja oRPMN vjej podmienke tkajcej sa nkladov tohto veru spsobil prisdi tejto doloke nekal povahu vzmysle lnkov 3 a4 smernice 93/13. Napriek tomu bez ohadu na priznan monos posdi tto zmluvu zhadiska smernice 93/13, smernica 87/102 sa m vyklada vtom zmysle, e vntrottnemu sdu umouje aj bez nvrhu uplatni ustanovenia preberajce do vntrottneho prva lnok4 tejto poslednej uvedenej smernice astanovujce, e neexistencia daja oRPMN vzmluve ospotrebiteskom vere m za nsledok, e poskytnut ver sa povauje za bezron abez poplatkov.

Otretej otzke

78

Touto otzkou sa vntrottny sd pta, i je za okolnost, ak s vo veci samej, avrozsahu, vakom dospeje kzveru, e ustanovenia smernice 87/102 a93/13 neboli dodran, oprvnen na zklade prvnej pravy nie tkajcej sa ochrany spotrebitea zastavi alebo obmedzi nten vkon prvoplatnho rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia prijatho poda rozhodcovskej doloky upravenej zmluvou overe.

79

V tejto svislosti je opodstatnen pripomen, e v rmci konania poda lnku267ZFE Sdny dvor nie je oprvnen uplatni prvne predpisy nie na konkrtny prpad, ale me sa iba vyjadri kvkladu Zmluvy aaktov prijatch intitciami
I - 11594

POHOTOVOS

nie (rozsudok zo6.oktbra 2005, MyTravel, C-291/03, Zb. s.I-8477, bod43 acitovan judikatra).

80

Touto otzkou sa vntrottny sd sna zska od Sdneho dvora odpove na otzku, i za okolnost, ak s vo veci samej, vzhadom na odpovede poskytnut Sdnym dvorom na prv adruh otzku, me poda prva nie avntrottneho prva obmedzi nten vkon prvoplatnho rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia dotknutho vo veci samej iba na zostvajcu sumu dln na zklade spotrebiteskho veru.

81

Vzhadom na to, e odpove na takto otzku by viedla Sdny dvor ktomu, aby sa vyjadril ku konkrtnemu uplatneniu prvnych predpisov vykladanch vrmci prvch dvoch otzok na skutkov stav vtejto veci, ana to, e vkadom prpade vntrottny sd m na zklade odpoved poskytnutch na tieto otzky kdispozcii vkladov prvky potrebn na vyrieenie sporu, oktorom rozhoduje, nie je opodstatnen odpoveda na tto otzku.

Otrovch

82

Vzhadom na to, e konanie pred Sdnym dvorom m vo vzahu kastnkom konania vo veci samej incidenn charakter abolo zaat vsvislosti sprekkou postupu vkonan pred vntrottnym sdom, otrovch konania rozhodne tento vntrottny sd. In trovy konania, ktor vznikli vsvislosti spredloenm pripomienok Sdnemu dvoru anie s trovami uvedench astnkov konania, nemu by nahraden.
I - 11595

UZNESENIE ZO16.11.2010VEC C-76/10

Ztchto dvodov Sdny dvor (sma komora) rozhodol takto:

1. Smernica Rady 93/13/EHS z5.aprla 1993 onekalch podmienkach vspotrebiteskch zmluvch uklad vntrottnemu sdu, ktor rozhoduje onvrhu na nten vkon prvoplatnho rozhodcovskho rozhodnutia vydanho bez asti spotrebitea, povinnos aj bez nvrhu posdi nekal povahu sankcie obsiahnutej vzmluve overe uzavretej poskytovateom veru so spotrebiteom auplatnenej vtomto rozhodnut, ak tento sd m na tento el kdispozcii nevyhnutn informcie oprvnom askutkovom stave apoda vntrottnych procesnch pravidiel me uveden sd vykona takto posdenie vrmci obdobnch konan na zklade vntrottneho prva.

2. Je lohou dotknutho vntrottneho sdu uri, i sa m podmienka zmluvy overe, ak je vo veci samej, upravujca poda zisten tohto sdu sankciu vneprimerane vysokej vke na archu spotrebitea vzhadom na vetky okolnosti tkajce sa uzavretia tejto zmluvy povaova za nekal v zmysle lnkov 3 a4 smernice 93/13. Vprpade kladnej odpovede je lohou uvedenho sdu vyvodi vetky dsledky, ktor ztoho vyplvaj poda vntrottneho prva, scieom ubezpei sa, e tento spotrebite nie je viazan touto podmienkou.

3. Za okolnost, ak s vo veci samej, neexistencia daja oronej percentulnej miere nkladov vzmluve ospotrebiteskom vere, ktor m podstatn vznam vkontexte smernice Rady 87/102/EHS z22.decembra 1986 oaproximcii zkonov, inch prvnych predpisov asprvnych opatren lenskch ttov, ktor sa tkaj spotrebiteskho veru, zmenenej adoplnenej smernicou Eurpskeho parlamentu a Rady 98/7/ES zo 16. februra 1998, me
I - 11596

POHOTOVOS

predstavova rozhodujcu okolnos pre vntrottny sd vrmci jeho analzy otzky, i podmienka zmluvy ospotrebiteskom vere tkajca sa jeho nkladov, vktorej sa nenachdza takto daj, je zrozumiten vzmysle lnku4 smernice 93/13. Ak nejde otakto prpad, tento sd m monos aj bez nvrhu posdi, i vzhadom na vetky okolnosti tkajce sa uzavretia tejto zmluvy je opomenutie daja oronej percentulnej miere nkladov vjej podmienke tkajcej sa nkladov tohto veru spsobil prisdi tejto doloke nekal povahu vzmysle lnkov 3 a4 smernice 93/13. Napriek tomu bez ohadu na priznan monos posdi tto zmluvu z hadiska smernice 93/13, smernica87/102 sa m vyklada vtom zmysle, e vntrottnemu sdu umouje aj bez nvrhu uplatni ustanovenia preberajce do vntrottneho prva lnok4 tejto poslednej uvedenej smernice astanovujce, e neexistencia daja oronej percentulnej miere nkladov vzmluve ospotrebiteskom vere m za nsledok, e poskytnut ver sa povauje za bezron abez poplatkov.

Podpisy

I - 11597