|Directive article||National ID||2Co/116/2011|
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Krajský súd v Prešove, (Prešov)||Plaintiff(s)|
|Court translation||Regional Court in Prešov, (Prešov)||Defendant(s)|
|Keywords||aggressive commercial practices, coercion, Consumer Credit Directive, financial services, payment, professional diligence, publication of decision|
+ Expand all
Sending a notice to a consumer that does not comply with its financial obligations, in which it is stated that the trader will publish the consumer's name as a default payer in local media, constitutes an aggressive commercial practice.
The plaintiff, a consumer, and the defendant, a credit agency, concluded two different credit agreements. After a certain period of time, the plaintiff was no longer able to comply with its obligations under the contracts as a result of which the defendant sent notices to the plaintiff in which the defendant threatened to publish the plaintiff´s name on a list of debtors while subsequently publishing such list in local media, e.g. local newspapers or local television.
The plaintiff argued that it had concluded the credit agreements without being fully informed on the details and the risks involved in concluding such agreements. The plaintiff e.g. referred to the fact that the price of the credit was 95%, resp. 92 % and that the purpose of the credit was contractually described as a business credit whereas the credit was intended for household purposes of the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff argued that the letters sent by the defendant were contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and constituted an unfair commercial practice.
Does sending a notice to a consumer that does not comply with its financial obligations, in which it is stated that the trader will publish the consumer's name as a default payer in local media, constitute an aggressive commercial practice?
In a short reasoning, the court held that the letters sent by the defendant have the character of an unfair commercial practice. Therefore, the court found, protection has to be provided to the plaintiff in relation to the threatening notices, according to which the plaintiff should pay under the penalty of publication of the information that the plaintiff is a debtor.
It was further held by the court that the use of such threatening language must be considered as an aggressive commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff's request was successful and the defendant was ordered to refrain from similar unfair commercial practices.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|