Article 38 - Consumer protection
Key facts of the case:
A lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of her fundamental right to judicial protection as well as right to a fair trial by the Regional Court, which, during the enforcement procedure, refused to review an payment order issued by a senior judicial officer on the basis of a consumer contract. According the applicable law, A was entitled to lodge an objection against the order for payment and give reasons in the statement opposition within 15-days period and then the case would be submitted to the judge. A remained passive and did not use available legal measure within the regular judicial procedure nor fulfilled her obligations according the issued order for payment. In the subsequent enforcing procedur A claimed the inadmissibility of the enforcement due to the fact, that her case was decided only by the senior judicial officer without material assessment by the judge. According to A, the Regional Court failed to follow the principle of effective consumer protection, which, based on the principle of equality of arms, is part of the fundamental right to judicial protection.
Applicable law:
- Constiution of the Slovak republic
- EU Charter on Fundamental Rights
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Constitutional Court was asked to decide whether A as the consumer was deprived of her right to effective consumer protection and the right to a fair trial, when only the senior judicial officer and not the judge issued an order for payment without material assessessment of the unfair conditions used in the consumer credit agreement. The Court had to further consider whether the consumer may seek such assessment to be done during the enforcement procedure despite her passivity during the judicial procedure.
Outcome of the case:
The Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's fundamental right to judicial protection, as well as her right to a fair trial. It referred to the case law of the CJEU (C-448/17, paras. 45-46 and para 54 and cases cited in this judgement) and pointed out to the relevant conclusion that despite the applicable law entrusts the power to grant the order for payment to senior judicial officer who is not a judge and provides for a period of 15 days within which to lodge a statement of opposition and requires the latter contain reasons on the substance, such legislation is not conform with the Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, where there is no provision for an assessment of the unfair nature of the terms in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller by the court of its own motion at the stage of enforcement.
In such cases, the consumer does not enjoy the guarantee of an ex officio review of the unfair terms by a judge, with the result in a failure to respect the objectives of Directive 93/13/EEC. The Regional Court could therefore not refuse to review an enforcement order issued by a senior judicial officer on the basis of a consumer contract, as in doing so it failed to follow the principle of effective consumer protection, which, based on the principle of equality of arms, is part of the fundamental right to judicial protection.
23. The principle of enhanced judicial protection for consumers can be abstracted from Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC. In order to achieve that objective, the courts of the Member States of the European Union have been entrusted with the power to examine the nature of unfair terms in consumer contracts of their own motion. At the same time, it is possible to abstract from the case-law of the Court of Justice (e.g. judgment in Case C-168/05 Mostaza Claro [2006] ECR I-168/05) the requirement to ensure effective consumer protection, for which an active approach to the exercise of that power is a prerequisite. The court hearing the case is therefore obliged to interpret and apply the national law in question in a Eurocompatible manner (e.g. Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic - Case No III ÚS 1996/13). The Court of Justice has even expressed the view that 'in view of the nature and importance of the general interest underlying the consumer protection which Directive 93/13 ensures, Article 6 thereof must be regarded as equivalent to national rules which, in the context of the national legal order, have the legal force of public policy rules' (judgment in Case C-40/08 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL [2009] ECR C-40/08, paragraph 52).
23. Z čl. 38 Charty základných práv Európskej únie, čl. 169 ods. 1 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie, ako aj z citovaných čl. 6 a 7 smernice 93/13/EHS možno abstrahovať princíp zvýšenej súdnej ochrany spotrebiteľa. Súdom členských štátov Únie bolo k naplneniu tohto cieľa zverené oprávnenie skúmať povahu neprijateľných podmienok v spotrebiteľských zmluvách z úradnej moci. Z judikatúry Súdneho dvora [napr. rozsudok vo veci C-168/05 z 25. októbra 2006 (Mostaza Claro)] možno zároveň abstrahovať požiadavku na zabezpečenie efektívnej ochrany spotrebiteľa, čoho nevyhnutným predpokladom je aktívny prístup k využívaniu spomínaného oprávnenia. Vo veci konajúci súd je preto dotknuté vnútroštátne právo povinný interpretovať a aplikovať eurokonformným spôsobom (napr. Ústavný súd Českej republiky – sp. zn. III. ÚS 1996/13). Súdny dvor dokonca vyslovil právny názor, podľa ktorého ,,vzhľadom na povahu a význam všeobecného záujmu, na ktorom sa zakladá ochrana spotrebiteľov, ktorú smernica 93/13 zabezpečuje, jej článok 6 musí byť považovaný za ustanovenie, ktoré je rovnocenné s vnútroštátnymi pravidlami, ktoré v rámci vnútroštátneho právneho poriadku majú právnu silu noriem verejného poriadku“ [rozsudok vo veci C-40/08 zo 6. októbra 2009 (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL), bod 52].
