Download Unfair Contract Terms Zagreb Dec 2014 3-1

Univ.-Prof. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI)
Contract Law: Unfair Contract Terms in
Consumer Contracts – Course: Consumer
Protection Law in the EU
(Sveučilište u Zagrebu 10.12.2014)
1. Scope of Application
Material Scope I: Contracts
• Directive 93/13 to be applied on all kind of contracts
(Rec.10: “...; whereas those rules should apply to all contracts …”)
-> any object (Art.4 I Dir93/13: „goods or services“)
– even real estate contracts / transactions concerning intellectual property
-> gratuitous transactions (eg personal guarantees)
– but: only between “sellers or suppliers and consumers” (Rec.10)
-> rarely employment or company contracts (no parties as consumers)
-> no family or succession contracts (no parties as business)
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
Introduction
Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
• only Directive generally concerning content of contract
(others on specific types of contract, eg consumer credit, package tours,
time sharing, consumer sales)
• based on Art 100a
EECT (now: Art 114 TFEU)
-> goals: functioning of internal market (and: consumer protection)
• legislative history: first drafts 1975/1977;
-> DE: AGB-G 1976 / UK: UCTA 1977 / FR: Loi 78-23 1978
consultation paper 1984; first proposal 24.7.1990; amended proposal 4.3.1992
• minimum harmonisation: Art.8 Dir93/13 – option for MS to adopt or retain
more stringent provisions in favour of consumer protection
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
1. Scope of Application
Material scope II: Consumer contracts
• Directive 93/13 to be applied only to B2C-contracts
(Rec.10: “... to all contracts between sellers or suppliers and consumers …”)
• Consumer: a “natural person who … is acting [+ primarily]* /[not predominant]** for
purposes which are outside [not related to]* his [or her]* trade, business [craft]** or profession“
(Art. 2 lit b Dir93/13)
-> usual definition (but compare DCFR Art. I.-1:105 (1)* ; CESL Art. 2 lit f **)
see ECJ Idealservice C-541/99, C-542/99: no extension to legal persons and companies
ECJ Gruber C-464/01: dual use - no consumer if more than marginal business aspect
• Seller / Supplier: any “natural or legal person who … is acting for purposes relating to his
trade, business or profession, whether publicly owned or privately owned” (Art 2 lit c Dir93/13)
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
2. Limitations to Contract Terms Control
I. Individually negotiated terms
• Fairness control only for non-negotiated terms (Art.3 (1) Dir93/13)
= pre-formulated / „drafted in advance“ (Art.3 (2) Dir93/13)
<-> standard form terms (generally drafted for several contracts, Art.II.-1:109 DCFR)
• compare DCFR Art. II.-9:403: “a term [which has not been individually
negotiated]” -> political decision (Intr.79)
• compare CESL Art. 83 (1): CommProp / EP
• burden of proof for individual negotiation bears the seller /supplier
(Art.3 (2) s.3 Dir93/13 / Art.II.-1:110 (4) DCFR)
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
2. Limitations to Contract Terms Control
II. Core terms (subject matter or price)
• No fairness control for the core of the contract (Art.4 (2) Dir93/13)
= subject matter of the contract / adequacy of the price in exchange
-> if in clear and comprehensible language
- Rec.19 Dir93/13: exception, should be interpreted in a restrictive way and
be limited to the price/quality ratio (price-related terms under control)
eg terms on calculation or change of price
but see ECJ Caja de Ahorros C-484/08: more stringent national provisions designed to afford
a higher level of consumer protection not precluded (Spain)
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
2. Limitations to Contract Terms Control
III. Mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions
• No fairness control if terms are similar to rules set by the legislator
„The contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions …
shall not be subject to the provisions of this Directive.“
(Art. 1 (2) Dir93/13)
- also default rules (Rec.13 s 3 Dir93/13)
-> these rules are considered to be the most equitable ones
- Rec.13 s.1 Dir93/13: „… are presumed not to contain unfair terms“
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
3. The Content of Contract Test
I. No special regulations on inclusion of terms into the contract
• DE:
- express reference to non-negotiated terms
- reasonable chance to take note of the content of the terms
- consent regarding the validity of the terms -> formation of contract
compare Art.II.-4:204 DCFR: acceptance
§305 (2) BGB:
Standard business terms only become a part of a contract if the user, when entering into the contract,
1. refers the other party to the contract to them explicitly or, where explicit reference, due to the way in
which the contract is entered into, is possible only with disproportionate difficulty, by posting a clearly
visible notice at the place where the contract is entered into, and
2. gives the other party to the contract, in an acceptable manner, which also takes into reasonable account
any physical handicap of the other party to the contract that is discernible to the user, the opportunity to
take notice of their contents,
and if the other party to the contract agrees to their applying.
- problem of conflicting standard terms: “strike out”-Rule
(Art. II.-4:209 DCFR)
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
3. The Content of Contract Test
II. No ban for surprising terms
• DE: - unusual non-negotiated terms are not included into the contract
§305 c (1) BGB:
(1)Provisions in standard business terms which in the circumstances, in particular with regard to the
outward appearance of the contract, are so unusual that the other party to the contract with the user need
not expect to encounter them, do not form part of the contract.
-- if terms are extraordinary in such a contract
or
-- if terms are unexpected in this part of a contract
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
4. The Fairness Test
I. Substantive Control – (1) General test
• term not “contrary to the requirement of good faith“ (Art.3 (1) Dir93/13)
-> „good faith“ as an important principle of continental systems, esp DE (§ 242 BGB)
-> „good faith“ used before as a general criterion to assess unfairness (eg PT Art.16 Law1985)
taking into account: nature of goods and services / circumstances at conclusion of contract /
other terms of the contract (Art. 4 (1) Dir93/13)
+ guidelines in the preamble (Rec.16):
“… whereas, in making an assessment of good faith, particular regard shall be had to the strength
of the bargaining positions of the parties …”
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
4. The Fairness Test
I. Substantive Control – (1) General test
• term not causing “a significant imbalance in the parties‘ rights and obligations“
(Art.3 (1) Dir93/13)
compared to statutory regulations or contractual practice
-> but: national contract law not uniform
- significant: not only marginal
- unjustified
- to the detriment of the consumer (favorable terms allowed)
ECJ Freiburger Kommunalbauten C-237/02: specific case has to be assessed by national court
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
4. The Fairness Test
I. Substantive Control – (2) Specific clauses
• Annex of the Directive 93/13 with „indicative and non-exhaustive“ (Art 3 (3)) list
-> “grey”: terms may be regarded as unfair -> but without obligation
lit a – lit q = 17 terms
-> DCFR Art. II.-9:410: same list „presumed to be unfair“
[but DE: two lists - one grey / one black]
only as a non-binding guideline for the fairness test
ECJ Commission v Sweden C-478/99: Annex must not be an integral part of the provisions
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
4. The Fairness Test
II. Consequences of unfairness
• terms failing the unfairness test are „not (be) binding on the consumer“ (Art.6 Dir93/13)
but the rest of the contract is not affected and continues to be binding
-> similar DCFR Art. II.-4:408
ECJ Oceano C-240/98: automatically non-binding (without an action of the consumer)
ECJ Asbeek/Jahani C-488/11: examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to
whether a contractual term is unfair
ECJ Banco Espanol-E C-618/10: national court cannot revise the content of that term
instead of merely setting aside its application to the consumer
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
4. The Fairness Test
III. Formal control
• the terms have to be expressed in „plain, intelligible language“ –
transparency principle (Art.5 s.1 Dir93/13)
and „the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail“
contra proferentem rule (Art.5 .s.2 Dir93/13)
ECJ RWE-Vertrieb C-92/11:
automatically non-binding (without action of consumer necessary)
ECJ Kásler C-26/13: Substitution of the unfair term by a supplementary provision of national law
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
5. Enforcement
Individual actions complemented by collective actions
• MS are required to introduce „adequate and effective means“
to prevent unfair terms (Art.7 Dir93/13)
-> „collective actions“ necessary, but instruments left to MS
(eg granting access to the courts to consumer associations,
implementing public bodies like the Office of Fair Trading /UK; Ombudsman /SE)
ECJ Pannon C-243/08: automatically non-binding (without an action of the consumer)
• criterion: average consumer (objective <-> Art. 4 (1) Dir93/13)
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze, LL.M. (EUI) - University of Zagreb (10.12.2014)
Thank you for your attention!