CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF EUROPEAN UNION ON UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS DIRECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS ON ESTONIAN DOMESTIC LAW

P. Kalamees, K. Sein
{"title":"CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF EUROPEAN UNION ON UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS DIRECTIVE: IMPLICATIONS ON ESTONIAN DOMESTIC LAW","authors":"P. Kalamees, K. Sein","doi":"10.13165/J.ICJ.2017.03.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present article analyses the relevant judgments of the CJEU and looks into whether Estonian legislation and the case law of the Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) concerning standard terms are consistent with the interpretations given by the CJEU. The article does not investigate all aspects associated with the rules on standard terms but rather concentrates only on the procedural obligations of a national court in deciding upon the unfair nature of standard terms and the consequences of establishing the unfairness of standard terms. The article also enquires whether the Estonian legislation on the order for payment procedure is in line with the UCTD. The authors submit that Estonian law - both the rules on standard terms as well as the procedural rules - is generally consistent with the requirements set out by the CJEU. In most cases, the Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) also follows the procedural standards created by the CJEU case law on UCTD. Nevertheless, the Estonian rules on order for payment procedure not in all aspects meet the CJEU standards set in the recent Finanmadrid case, as the Estonian procedural law does not allow the unfairness control of standard terms in the initial proceeding nor at the later enforcement stage. Therefore, the Estonian Code of Civil Procedure needs to be changed to bring it in line with the UCTD.","PeriodicalId":32140,"journal":{"name":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":"3 1","pages":"115-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13165/J.ICJ.2017.03.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The present article analyses the relevant judgments of the CJEU and looks into whether Estonian legislation and the case law of the Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) concerning standard terms are consistent with the interpretations given by the CJEU. The article does not investigate all aspects associated with the rules on standard terms but rather concentrates only on the procedural obligations of a national court in deciding upon the unfair nature of standard terms and the consequences of establishing the unfairness of standard terms. The article also enquires whether the Estonian legislation on the order for payment procedure is in line with the UCTD. The authors submit that Estonian law - both the rules on standard terms as well as the procedural rules - is generally consistent with the requirements set out by the CJEU. In most cases, the Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) also follows the procedural standards created by the CJEU case law on UCTD. Nevertheless, the Estonian rules on order for payment procedure not in all aspects meet the CJEU standards set in the recent Finanmadrid case, as the Estonian procedural law does not allow the unfairness control of standard terms in the initial proceeding nor at the later enforcement stage. Therefore, the Estonian Code of Civil Procedure needs to be changed to bring it in line with the UCTD.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲联盟法院关于不公平合同条款指令的判例法:对爱沙尼亚国内法的影响
本文分析了欧洲法院的有关判决,并探讨爱沙尼亚立法和爱沙尼亚最高法院(Riigikohus)关于标准条款的判例法是否与欧洲法院的解释相一致。这篇文章并没有研究与标准条款规则有关的所有方面,而只是集中讨论了国家法院在判定标准条款的不公平性质以及确立标准条款不公平的后果方面的程序义务。该条还询问爱沙尼亚关于付款程序顺序的立法是否符合UCTD。发件人认为,爱沙尼亚法律- -包括关于标准条款的规则和程序规则- -大体上符合欧洲法院提出的要求。在大多数情况下,爱沙尼亚最高法院(Riigikohus)也遵循欧洲法院判例法关于联合起诉的程序标准。然而,爱沙尼亚关于付款程序命令的规则并非在所有方面都符合欧洲法院在最近的马德里财政案中规定的标准,因为爱沙尼亚程序法不允许在最初的诉讼程序中或在后来的执行阶段对标准条款进行不公平的控制。因此,需要修改《爱沙尼亚民事诉讼法》,使之与UCTD保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DOMESTIC REFORMS TOWARDS STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW, IN GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, AND UKRAINE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: WESTERN AND ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES SHOULD THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DEVELOP A POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE CONDITIONS FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF NATURAL PERSONS: WHICH BALTIC STATE IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FOR BANKRUPTCY? WHAT CAN FRANCE LEARN FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC’S APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF WEARING (ISLAMIC) RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1