Статья 'Unfair terms, protective nullity and Court’s powers: certain reference points after JőrÖs’ and Asbeek Brusse’s rulings.' - журнал 'SENTENTIA. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences' - NotaBene.ru
по
Меню журнала
> Архив номеров > Рубрики > О журнале > Авторы > О журнале > Требования к статьям > Редакция и редакционный совет > Порядок рецензирования статей > Ретракция статей > Этические принципы > Политика открытого доступа > Оплата за публикации в открытом доступе > Online First Pre-Publication > Политика авторских прав и лицензий > Политика цифрового хранения публикации > Политика идентификации статей > Политика проверки на плагиат > Условия публикации
Журналы индексируются
Реквизиты журнала
Публикация за 72 часа - теперь это реальность!
При необходимости издательство предоставляет авторам услугу сверхсрочной полноценной публикации. Уже через 72 часа статья появляется в числе опубликованных на сайте издательства с DOI и номерами страниц.
По первому требованию предоставляем все подтверждающие публикацию документы!
ГЛАВНАЯ > Вернуться к содержанию
SENTENTIA. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
Правильная ссылка на статью:

Unfair terms, protective nullity and Court’s powers: certain reference points after JőrÖs’ and Asbeek Brusse’s rulings. / Unfair terms, protective nullity and Court’s powers: certain reference points after JőrÖs’ and Asbeek Brusse’s rulings.

Розалба Алесси

профессор гражданского права, Палермский университет

90133, Italy, Palermo, Piazza Marina, 61

Rosalba Alessi

Professor, department of Civil Law, University of Palermo

90133, Italiya, Palermo, St. Piazza Marina 61

danilenko_d@mail.ru
Другие публикации этого автора
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/1339-3057.2015.2.15603

Дата направления статьи в редакцию:

17-06-2015


Дата публикации:

09-07-2015


Аннотация: The paper takes the cases Jőrös (Case C- 397/11,) and Asbeek Brusse,(case C-488-11), both dated 30 may 2013, as a starting point for a more general analysis of the ECJ’s approach to the legal consequences to be drawn by a national Court from finding that a contractual term is unfair. The essay focuses on the question whether the interest of the consumer- at the basis of the remedy under consideration – is compatible with the general public interest and with the duty of the National Court to declare the nullity of its own motion , perhaps in contrast with the individual interest of the party. The paper criticizes the “Pannon ruling”, and points out how the more recent Banif Plus judgment (2012) has refined that ruling even when the partial nullity is concerned. If the duty of the National Court to declare the nullity of its own motion aims to guarantee a general interest and the values held by the Constitution - the A. argues- there is no way the consumer can “oppose” to the declaration and express his own interest to preserve the contract. Consistently with this idea of consumer protection, in the recent Jőrös judgment the ECJ partially reviews also the so called Perenicova jurisprudence and clarifies that the National Court is required to determine whether or not the contract can continue to produce its effects on the basis of objective criteria.


Ключевые слова: European Union, European Union law, European market, European Court, case law, judgment, court rulings, consumer contracts, unfair terms, protective nullity

Abstract: The article examines the cases of Jőrös (Case C- 397/11,) and Asbeek Brusse,(case C-488-11), both dated 30 may 2013, as a starting point for a more general analysis of the ECJ’s approach to the legal consequences to be drawn by the national Court from finding that a contractual term is unfair. The work focuses on the question of whether the interest of the consumer – at the basis of the remedy under consideration – is compatible with the general public interest and with the duty of the National Court to declare the nullity of its own motion, perhaps in contrast with the individual interest of the party. The paper criticizes the “Pannon ruling”, and points out how the more recent Banif Plus judgment (2012) has refined that ruling, even when the partial nullity is concerned. If the duty of the National Court to declare the nullity of its own motion aims to guarantee general interest and the values held by the Constitution – the A. argues – there is no way the consumer can “oppose” the declaration and express his own interest to preserve the contract. Consistently with this idea of consumer protection, in the recent Jőrös judgment the ECJ partially reviewed the so called Perenicova jurisprudence, and clarifies that the National Court is required to determine whether or not the contract can continue to maintain its effects on the basis of objective criteria.



Keywords:

European Union, European Union law, European market, European Court, case law, judgment, court rulings, consumer contracts, unfair terms, protective nullity

Библиография
1.
For the origin of the formula, see references in GENTILI A. La «nullità di protezione», Le tutele contrattuali e il diritto europeo, Napoli, 2012, P. 672.
2.
For an overview see GAVRILOVIC N., The Unfair Contract Terms Directive through the Practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union : Interpretation or something more ? ERCL, 2013, 2, P. 163
3.
The view is taken by PAGLIANTINI, S. Nullità di protezione, integrazione dispositiva e massimo effetto utile :variazioni sul tema dell’asimmetria contrattuale, in Persona e mercato, 2/2012, 107-108
4.
MAZZAMUTO S. ,Brevi note in tema di conservazione o caducazione del contratto in dipendenza della nullita della clausola abusiva, in Contratto e impresa., 1994, P. 1097
5.
D’ADDA A. , Giurisprudenza comunitaria e “massimo effetto utile per il consumatore”: nullità (parziale) necessaria della clausola abusiva e integrazione del contratto, I Contratti, 1/2013, P.16
6.
For earlier reflections on the topic, see DE NOVA G. Nullità relativa, nullità parziale e clausole vessatorie non specificamente approvare per iscritto , in Riv.dir.civ. 1976, P. 486 .
7.
SCALISI V., L’invalidità e l’inefficacia, Manuale di diritto privato europeo, vol. II, Proprietà Obbligazioni Contratti , Milano 2007. P. 487.
8.
See also, ROTT P. ,Case note on Banco Español de credito v.Joaquí Calderón Camino, European Review of Contract Law, 2012, 4, P. 477
9.
For this argument , see FERRI G.B., La ´cultura del contratto e la struttura del mercato`, in Riv. dir. comm., 1997, P. I
10.
ALESSI R., Transazioni commerciali e redistribuzione tra le parti del costo del ritardato pagamento: per una lettura del d.lgs. 231/2002 al riparo dall'ambiguo richiamo all' "equità"., Studi in onore di Antonio Palazzo, Diritto Privato, 3 Proprietà e rapporti obbligatori, Torino, 2009, P 1
References (transliterated)
1.
For the origin of the formula, see references in GENTILI A. La «nullità di protezione», Le tutele contrattuali e il diritto europeo, Napoli, 2012, P. 672.
2.
For an overview see GAVRILOVIC N., The Unfair Contract Terms Directive through the Practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union : Interpretation or something more ? ERCL, 2013, 2, P. 163
3.
The view is taken by PAGLIANTINI, S. Nullità di protezione, integrazione dispositiva e massimo effetto utile :variazioni sul tema dell’asimmetria contrattuale, in Persona e mercato, 2/2012, 107-108
4.
MAZZAMUTO S. ,Brevi note in tema di conservazione o caducazione del contratto in dipendenza della nullita della clausola abusiva, in Contratto e impresa., 1994, P. 1097
5.
D’ADDA A. , Giurisprudenza comunitaria e “massimo effetto utile per il consumatore”: nullità (parziale) necessaria della clausola abusiva e integrazione del contratto, I Contratti, 1/2013, P.16
6.
For earlier reflections on the topic, see DE NOVA G. Nullità relativa, nullità parziale e clausole vessatorie non specificamente approvare per iscritto , in Riv.dir.civ. 1976, P. 486 .
7.
SCALISI V., L’invalidità e l’inefficacia, Manuale di diritto privato europeo, vol. II, Proprietà Obbligazioni Contratti , Milano 2007. P. 487.
8.
See also, ROTT P. ,Case note on Banco Español de credito v.Joaquí Calderón Camino, European Review of Contract Law, 2012, 4, P. 477
9.
For this argument , see FERRI G.B., La ´cultura del contratto e la struttura del mercato`, in Riv. dir. comm., 1997, P. I
10.
ALESSI R., Transazioni commerciali e redistribuzione tra le parti del costo del ritardato pagamento: per una lettura del d.lgs. 231/2002 al riparo dall'ambiguo richiamo all' "equità"., Studi in onore di Antonio Palazzo, Diritto Privato, 3 Proprietà e rapporti obbligatori, Torino, 2009, P 1
Ссылка на эту статью

Просто выделите и скопируйте ссылку на эту статью в буфер обмена. Вы можете также попробовать найти похожие статьи


Другие сайты издательства:
Официальный сайт издательства NotaBene / Aurora Group s.r.o.
Сайт исторического журнала "History Illustrated"