Make a Submission
Vol. 38 (2018)
General Articles

The Dual/Multiple Nature of “Plain and Intelligible Language” of UnfairTerms in Consumer Contracts under European Law and Its Polish Transposition

PDF
  • Piotr Sitnik
Piotr Sitnik
University of London

Published 2018-12-31

Keywords

  • plain and intelligible language,
  • consumer contracts,
  • unfair terms,
  • substantive unfairness,
  • Directive 93/13/EEC

Copyright (c) 2021 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The Dual/Multiple Nature of “Plain and Intelligible Language” of UnfairTerms in Consumer Contracts under European Law and Its Polish Transposition. (2018). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 38, 253-272. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2019.129615

Abstract

The “plain and intelligible language” requirement performs a dual function within the framework of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. First, it is listed as a requirement for application of the exemption included in Art. 4(2) as regards policing terms relating to the main subject matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration. Second, the “plain and intelligible language” requirement is a general requirement addressed at all consumer contracts executed in writing (Art. 5). This paper examines the boundaries of the precept, and places particular emphasis on the recent developments in both EU and Polish law, where the requirement has been used to imply a host of information duties aimed at enhancing consumers’ capacity to foresee the consequences of the terms that they are assenting to. This apparently novel approach, which has been developing in piecemeal fashion in the CJEU’s ever-expanding case law, may trigger significant consequences in the field of consumer contract law. In some ways, expansion of the substantive scope of the requirement may be said to be motivated by the fact that courts, under Art. 4(2) of Directive 93/13, are unable to subject the adequacy of the price and remuneration against the services or supply of goods received in exchange to the substantive fairness test under Art. 3(1) (examination of terms through the prism of the notions of good faith and significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer).

PDF

References

  1. Azciaraga Monzonis C., The Mandatory Nature of the Right of Withdrawal [in:] J. Plaza Penades, L.M. Martinez Velencoso (eds.), European Perspectives on the Common European Sales Law, Springer, Berlin 2014.
  2. Barnhizer D.D., Propertization Metaphors for Bargaining Power and Control of the Self in the Information Age, „Cleveland State Law Review” 2006, vol. 54.
  3. Bączyk M., Przegląd orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego w sprawach bankowych za okres od lipca do grudnia 2016 r. (cz. I) [Overview of the Supreme Court’s case law in banking matters in the period between July and December 2016 (part I)], „Monitor Prawa Bankowego” 2017, no. 10.
  4. Bednarek M., [in:] E. Lętowska (ed.), Prawo zobowiązań - część ogólna. System Prawa Prywatnego. Tom 5 [Law of obligations - general part. System of Private Law. Volume 5], C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2013.
  5. Borselli A., Cognosceat emptor: on the insurer’s duty to inform the prospective policyholder in Europe, „Insurance Law Review” 2012, no. 2.
  6. Browne M.N., Clapp K.B., Kubasek N.K., Biksacky L., Protecting Consumers from Themselves: Consumer Law and the Vulnerable Consumer, „Drake Law Review” 2015, vol. 63, no. 1.
  7. Cabrales A., Charness G., Villeval M.C., Hidden Information, Bargaining Power, And Efficiency: An Experiment, „Experimental Economics” 2011, vol. 14, no. 2.
  8. Case C-143/13 Matei v SC Volksbank Romania SA [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:127.
  9. Case C-186/16Andriciuc v Banca Romaneasca SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2017:703.
  10. Case C-191/15 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sarl [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2016:612.
  11. Case C-226/12, Constructora Principado SA v Jose Ignacio Menendez Alvarez [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:10.
  12. Case C-26/13 Kasler v OTP Jelzalogbank Zrt [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:282.
  13. Case C-342/13 Katalin Sebestyen v Zsolt Csaba Kovari and Others [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:1857.
  14. Case C-472/10 Nemzeti Fogyasztovedelmi Hatosag v Invitel Tavkozlesi Zrt [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:242.
  15. Case C-92/11 RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:180.
  16. Case C-96/14 Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:262.
  17. Cases C-1 54/15 and C-307/15 Francisco Gutierrez Naranjo v Cajasur Banco SAU et al. [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2016:980.
  18. Chen-Wishart M., Regulating Unfair Terms [in:] L. Gullifer, S. Vogenauer (eds.), English and European Perspectives on Contract and Commercial Law: Essays in Honour of Hugh Beale, Hart Publishing, London 2014.
  19. Choi A., Triantis G., The Effect of Bargaining Power on Contract Design, „Virginia Law Review” 2012, vol. 98, no. 8.
  20. Collins H., The Directive on Unfair Contract Terms: Implementation, Effectiveness and Harmonization [in:] H. Collins (ed.), Standard Contract Terms in Europe: A Basis for and a Challenge to European Contract Law, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2009.
  21. Dampier P., AT&T’s Service Deposit Becomes Controversial Non-Refundable “Credit Management Fee”, available at: http://stopthecap.com/2017/10/31/atts-service-deposit-becomes-controversial-non-refundable-credit-management-fee/, 31 October 2017 [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  22. Domurath I., Consumer Vulnerability and Welfare in Mortgage Contracts, Hart Publishing, London 2017.
  23. Duivenvoorde B., The Protection of Vulnerable Consumers under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, „Journal of European Consumer and Market Law” 2013, vol. 2, no. 2.
  24. Durovic M., European Law on Unfair Commercial Practices and Contract Law, Hart Publishing, London 2016.
  25. Gontarski W., Przedkontraktowe obowiązki informacyjne banku w przypadku kredytów udzielanych w walucie obcej - glosa do wyroku TS z 3 grudnia 2015 r., C-312/14 [Pre-contractual information duties in the case of loans taken out in a foreign currency - comment on the CJEU's judgment of 3 December 2015, C-312/14], LEX 2016.
  26. Gorzko P., Zagadnienia dopuszczalności stosowania oraz abuzywności bankowych klauzul o zmiennym oprocentowaniu [Questions pertaining to the permissibility as well as possibilities of abuse of variable interest rates], „Transformacje Prawa Prywatnego” 2012, no. 3.
  27. Helberger N., Loos M.B.M., Guibault L., Mak C., Pessers L., Digital Content Contracts for Consumers, „Journal of Consumer Policy” 2013, vol. 36, no. 1.
  28. Hondius E., The Reception of the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts by Member States, „European Review of Private Law” 1995, no. 3.
  29. Jozon M., The Methodology of Judicial Cooperation in Unfair Contract Terms Law [in:] F. Cafaggi, S. Law (eds.), Judicial Cooperation in European Private Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham 2017.
  30. Keirsbilck B., The Erga Omnes Effect of the Finding of an Unfair Contract Term: Nemzeti, „Common Market Law Review” 2013, vol. 50, no. 5.
  31. Kohutek K., Klauzula modyfikacyjna: faktyczna ochrona konsumenta czy bezpodstawny formalizm? [Modification clause: actual protection of the consumer or baseless formalism?], „Przegląd Prawa Handlowego” 2017, no. 12.
  32. Leone C., Transparency revisited - on the role of information in the recent case-law of the CJEU, „European Review of Contract Law” 2014, no. 10.
  33. Loos M., Luzak J., Wanted a Bigger Stick. On Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts with Online Service Providers, „Journal of Consumer Policy” 2016, vol. 39.
  34. Loos M.B.M., Transparency of standard terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law, „European Review of Private Law” 2015, vol. 23, no. 2.
  35. Luzak J., Kasler repercussions -AG Tanchev in OTP Bank and OTP Faktoring (C-51/17), available at: http://recent-ecl.blogspot.com/2018/05/kasler-repercussions-ag-tanchev-in-otp.html [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  36. Luzak J., Vulnerable Travellers in the Digital Age, „Journal of European Consumer and Market Law” 2016, vol. 5, no. 3.
  37. Łętowska E., Europejskie prawo umów konsumenckich, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2004.
  38. Łętowska E., Ustawa o ochronie niektórych praw konsumentów: komentarz [Act on Protection of Certain Consumer Rights. Commentary], C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2001.
  39. Macdonald E., Atkins R., Koffinan & Macdonald’s Law of Contract (8th ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014.
  40. Mendez-Pinedo M.E., Iceland, the EFTA Court and the Indexation of Credit to Inflation: Operating in Nature Ex-Post but Need to Calculate the Disclose ex-ante. A Law of Contradiction, „Juridical Tribune” 2016, no. 6.
  41. Metzger A., Data as Counter-Performance: What Rights and Duties for Parties Have, „Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law” 2017, vol. 8, no. 1.
  42. Micklitz H.-W., Reich N., The Court and Sleeping Beauty: The Revival of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD), Common Market Law Review 2014, vol. 51, no. 3.
  43. Micklitz H.-W., The Proposal on Consumer Rights and the Opportunity for a Reform of European Unfair Terms Legislation in Consumer Contracts, „EUI Working Papers Law” 2010, no. 12, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=1698703 [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  44. Mikłaszewicz P., Art. 385 [in:] K. Osajda (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Zobowiązania. Część ogólna. Tom III A [Civil Code. Commentary. Obligations. General part. Volume III A], C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2017.
  45. Mikłaszewicz P., Obowiązki informacyjne w umowach z udziałem konsumentów na tle prawa Unii Europejskiej [Information duties In consumer contracts in the context of European Union law], Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa 2008.
  46. Nebbia P., Unfair Contract Terms in European Law: A Study in Comparative and EC Law, Hart Publishing, London 2007.
  47. Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, Raport z Kontroli Wzorców Umownych Stosowanych przez Zakłady Ubezpieczeń) [Report following an inspection of model contracts used by insurance firms], September 2006, available at: https://www.uokik.gov.pl/download.php?id=584 [accessed: 28 November 2018].
  48. Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev in Case C-51/17 OTP Bank Nyrt. and OTP Faktoring Koveteleskezelo Zrt v Terez Ilyes and Emil Kiss [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:303.
  49. Orlicki M., Kilka uwag o technice tworzenia ogólnych warunków ubezpieczenia [Remarks on the technique of drafting of model insurance contracts], „Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe” 2011, no. 1.
  50. Ostałowski J., Zaniechanie informacyjne banku jako podstawa roszczeń konsumenta dotyczących umowy kredytu denominowanego we franku szwajcarskim [Information negligence of a bank as a basis of consumer claims under a loan denominated in Swiss francs], „Przegląd Prawa Handlowego” 2018, no. 4.
  51. Pacuła K., Art. 23a [in:] K. Osajda (ed.), Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów (art. 23a-23d i 99a-99f). Komentarz [Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (arts. 23a-23d and 99a-99f). Commentary], Legalis 2018.
  52. Patterson J., The Australian Unfair Contract Terms Law: The Rise of Substantive Unfairness as a Ground for Review of Standard Form Consumer Contracts, „Melbourne University Law Review” 2009, vol. 33, no. 3.
  53. Popiołek W., Art. 385 [in:] K. Pietrzykowski (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz [Civil Code. Commentary], C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2013.
  54. Postanowienie Sądu Najwyższego [Resolution by the Supreme Court], 22 April 2015, I CSK 720/14, LEX no. 1710341.
  55. Reich N., Balancing in Private Law: Experiences and Opportunities [in:] R. Brownsword, H.-W. Micklitz, L. Niglia, S. Weatherill (eds.), The Foundations of European Private Law, Hart Publishing, London 2011.
  56. Reich N., Micklitz H.-W., Unfair Terms in the Draft Common Frame of Reference (Comments on the Occasion of the Tartu Conference on Recent Developments in European Private Law), „Juridica International” 2008, no. 14.
  57. Report of the Ombudsman for the Insured, Nieprawidłowości w ogólnych warunkach ubezpieczenia [Irregularities in standard insurance terms], available at: https://bit.ly/2XBQjOK [accessed: 30 November 2018].
  58. Rodik P., The Impact of the Swiss Franc Loans Crisis on Croatian Households [in:] S.M. Degirmencioglu, C. Walker (eds.), Social and Psychological Dimensions of Personal Debt and the Debt Industry, Springer, Berlin 2015.
  59. Romanowski M., Zasada przejrzystości materialnej umowy konsumenckiej [The principle of substantive transparency of a consumer agreement] [in:] M. Romanowski (ed.), Życie umowy konsumenckiej po uznaniu jej postanowienia za nieuczciwe na tle orzecznictwa TSUE [Sustainment of a consumer agreement following the striking out of unfair terms under the CJEU’s jurisprudence], C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2017.
  60. Rutgers J., Judicial Decisions on Private International Law: Court of Justice of the European Union 28 July 2016, Case C-191/15 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v. Amazon EU Sarl ECLIEU C:2016612, „Netherlands International Law Review” 2017, vol. 64.
  61. Sieradzka M., Glosa do wyroku TS z 30 kwietnia 2014 r, C-26/13 [Case comment on the judgment of the CJEU of 30 April2014, C-26/13], LEX 2014.
  62. Sik-Simon R., Missbrauchliche Klauseln in Fremdwahrungskreditvertragen - Klauselersatz durch dispositive nationale Vorschriften, EuGH Rs C-26/13 (Kdsler) und Kuria 2/2014. PJE hatarozata, „Journal of European Consumer and Market Law” 2014, vol. 3, no. 4.
  63. Stefanicki R., Konstytucjonalizacja ochrony konsumenta na tle standardów prawa wspólnotowego [Constitutionalization of consumer protection against the backdrop of Community law], „Państwo i Prawo” 2008, no. 3.
  64. Stefanicki R., Ochrona konsumenta w świetle ustawy o szczególnych warunkach sprzedaży konsumenckiej [Protection of the consumer under the Act on Special Conditions Applicable to Consumer Sales], Kantor Wydawniczy Zakamycze, Kraków 2006.
  65. Stefanicki R., Wdrażanie dyrektywy 93/13/EWG w świetle ostatniego orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, cz. II [Implementation of Directive 93/13/EEC in light of the latest case law of the Court of Justice], „Przegląd Prawa Handlowego” 2015, no. 6.
  66. Straetmans G., Misleading practices, the consumer information model and consumer protection, „Journal of European Consumer and Market Law” 2016, vol. 5, no. 5.
  67. Traiger M., Party Autonomy and Social Justice in Member States and EC Regulation: A Survey of Theory and Practice [in:] H. Collins (ed.), Standard Contract Terms in Europe: A Basis for and a Challenge to European Contract Law, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2009.
  68. Trzaskowski R., Art. 385 [in:] J. Gudowski (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Tom II. Zobowiązania. Część ogólna [Civil Code. Commentary. Volume III. Obligations. General part], ed. II, LEX 2018.
  69. Wałachowska M., Wzorce umowne po wejściu w życie nowej ustawy o dzialalności ubezpieczeniowej i reasekuracyjnej (zagadnienia wybrane) [Model contracts following the entry into force of the new Act on Insurance and Reinsurance Activity], „Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe” 2016, no. 3.
  70. Weatherill S., Consumer Rights Directive: How and Why a Quest for Coherence Has (Largely) Failed, „Common Market Law Review” 2012, vol. 49, no. 4.
  71. Weatherill S., Empowerment is not the Only Fruit, in: D. Leczykiewicz, S. Weatherill (eds.), The Images of the Consumer in EU Law: Legislation, Free Movement and Competition Law, Hart Publishing, London 2016.
  72. Whittaker S., The Language or Languages of Consumer Contracts, „Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies” 2005-2006, vol. 8.
  73. Wieczorek E., [in:] Z. Brodecki (ed.), Prawo ubezpieczeń gospodarczych. Komentarz. TOM II. Prawo o kontraktach w ubezpieczeniach. Komentarz do przepisów i wybranych wzorców umów [Law of business insurance. Commentary. Volume II. Law of insurance contracts. Commentary on statutory provisions and selected model contracts], Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa 2010.
  74. Więcko-Tułowiecka M., Ochrona konsumentów w umowach ubezpieczenia [Protection of consumer under insurance contracts], LexisNexis, Warszawa 2014.
  75. Willett C., Re-Theorising Consumer Law, „Cambridge Law Journal” 2018, vol. 77, no. 1.
  76. Working Group Guidance Document on Vulnerable Consumers, published in November 2013, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20140106_vulnerable-consumer report_1.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  77. Wójtowicz E., Instrumenty kontroli wzorców umownych w obrocie profesjonalnym [Instruments of control of model contracts in professional trading], Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 2009, vol. 308.
  78. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Łodzi [judgment of the Appellate Court for Lódź], 30 November 2017, I ACa 903/17, LEX no. 2461426.
  79. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Łodzi [judgment of the Appellate Court for Lódź], 16 September 2015, I ACa 524/15, LEX no. 1808670.
  80. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Szczecinie [Judgment of the Appellate Court for Szczecin], 13 June 2016, I ACa 23/15, LEX no. 2121872.
  81. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie [Judgment of the Appellate Court for Warsaw], 9 February 2012, LEX no. 1213380.
  82. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie [Judgment of the Appellate Court for Warsaw], 4 July 2017, VI ACa 345/16, LEX no. 2486476.
  83. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie [judgment of the Appellate Court for Warsaw], 26 April 2013, VI ACa 1509/12, LEX no. 1322087.
  84. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego we Wrocławiu [Judgment of the Appellate Court for Wroclaw], 16 February 2017, I ACa 1585/16, LEX no. 2340273.
  85. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 1 March 2017, IV CSK 285/16, LEX no. 2308321.
  86. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 10 July 2014, I CSK 531/13, LEX no. 1537260.
  87. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 12 January 2007, IV CSK 307/06, LEX no. 238967.
  88. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 14 March 2018, II CSK 445/17, LEX no. 2486131.
  89. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 15 February 2013, I CSK 313/12, „Monitor Prawa Bankowego” 2013, no. 12.
  90. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 15 January 2016, I CSK 122/15, LEX no. 1977822.
  91. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 16 September 2016, IV CSK 711/15, LEX no. 2151436.
  92. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 22 January 2016, I CSK 1049/14, „Monitor Prawa Bankowego” 2017, no. 2.
  93. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 30 September 2015, I CSK 800/14, „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego. Izba Cywilna” 2016, nr 9.
  94. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], 4 March 2016, I CSK 72/15, LEX no. 2036717.
  95. Wyrok Sądu Okręgowego w Łodzi [judgment of the District Court for Łódź], 20 August 2015, III Ca 720/15, LEX no. 2131849.
  96. Wyrok Sądu Okręgowego w Rzeszowie [judgment of the Rzeszów Regional Court], 19 October 2015, VI GC 271/15, LEX no. 1952094.
  97. Wyrok SąduApelacyjnego w Warszawie [judgment of the Appellate Court for Warsaw], 25 May 2017, VI ACa 145/16, LEX no. 2330650.
  98. Zagrobelny K., [in:] E. Gniewek (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz [Civil Code. Commentary], C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2011.
  99. Zoll F., Potrzeba i kierunek nowelizacji kodeksowego ujęcia problematyki wzorców umownych [The need for and direction of amendments to the regulation of model contracts under the Civil Code], „Przegląd Legislacyjny” 1997, no. 1.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.