Order proceedings aimed at facilitating and speeding up the redress of claims by the creditor shall not be at the expense of the rights of the consumer. In resolving cases involving the consumer, the court should take into account the peculiar protection which the client has in relation to the professional. This was the position taken by the ultimate Court, following an extraordinary complaint lodged by the Ombudsman (RPO). This judgement constitutes an crucial precedent for protecting consumer rights in Poland.
Background
The case afraid an RPO complaint afraid a female who borrowed PLN 3419 from a parabank. The agreement that she had concluded charged her many extra costs. As a result, the amount to be reimbursed increased to PLN 7 thousand, which included insurance, remuneration for the company and the cost of launching the loan. erstwhile a female did not pay the amount she borrowed, she received a payment order from the territory court on the basis of a blank note signed by her. The RPO, pointing out the gross injustice that affected the client of the debt firm, filed an extraordinary complaint with the ultimate Court.
Arguments of the RPO
Professor Marcin Wiązek, representing the RPO, argued that a woman, signing a contract with a legally functioning debt company in Poland, could be convinced that the law protects her from usury and assures that she will not be deceived. However, the agreement proved to be highly unfair and the disparity between the amount of the debt and the related costs should have alerted the justice at the very beginning of the procedure.
Supreme Court Judgment
The ultimate Court accepted the arguments of the RPO and waived the order for payment issued by the territory Court, returning the case for reconsideration. The SN indicated that the imbalance between the amount of the debt itself and the costs associated with the contract should have alerted the judge. In prescriptive proceedings, where the order for payment is immediately issued, it is essential to examine whether the contract contains no abuzz clauses which automatically lead to the cancellation of the contract.
Analysis of the case law
In this case, the regional court failed to show its initiative and, without a hearing, took into account the blank note presented by the lender. This is to be condemned, according to the ultimate Court, due to the fact that it is contrary to the judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 13 September 2018 (Case C-176/17). The SN recalled that the anticipation of the entrepreneur to trust on the rights arising from the note should be strictly limited. Before taking into account the provision of the blank note, the court should carefully examine whether there is simply a breach of consumer law and whether the consumer is automatically placed in a worse position.
Conclusion
The ultimate Court ruling in this case underlines the importance of consumer protection in order procedures. The court must always take into account peculiar protection for consumers in relations with professionals. Prescriptive proceedings must not take place at the expense of consumer rights, and courts should carefully examine contracts in terms of abusive clauses and gross injustice.
The decision of the SN represents an crucial step towards strengthening the protection of consumer rights in Poland, while recalling that traders must not abuse blank notes to exert force on consumers. In the context of the increasing number of disputes between consumers and parabankers, this judgement constitutes an crucial precedent which can contribute to fairer treatment of consumers in the future.
Legal basis
Judgment of the ultimate Court of 28 May 2024, act number: II NSNc 318/23
Daniel Głogowski
Expert in his field – Publicist, author and social activist. The first articles were published in 1999 for global publishers. For more than 30 years, he has gained his experience through cooperation with the largest editorial offices. In his articles, he seeks to address controversial topics and present first viewpoints that allowed for a deeper knowing of the issues discussed.
Continued here:
Wexel in blanco can't be a whip on debt shark victims," said SN
