Transparency of (Pre-)Contractual Information in Consumer Credit Agreements: Is Consistency the Missing Key?

M. Junuzović
{"title":"Transparency of (Pre-)Contractual Information in Consumer Credit Agreements: Is Consistency the Missing Key?","authors":"M. Junuzović","doi":"10.3935/CYELP.14.2018.310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article shows that there is a lack of consistency in the interpretation of the meaning and scope of the obligation of traders to provide transparent pre-contractual and contractual information on consumer credit to consumers in EU law. On the basis of an analysis of transparency requirements prescribed by the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Consumer Credit Directive, differences in the understanding of transparency are highlighted. While the transparency test under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive focuses on the question of comprehensibility of credit information, the transparency test under the Consumer Credit Directive focuses on the format, position, length and font size of information. Consequently, the transparency of the same information provided in the course of concluding a consumer credit agreement could be evaluated differently on the basis of these two directives. This lack of consistency in the interpretation of transparency might pose a particular problem for national enforcement authorities. In the example of Croatia, it is demonstrated that the lack of guidance and consistency in the interpretation of various transparency requirements in the area of consumer credit at the EU level leaves space for national enforcement authorities to develop their own understanding of transparency. Where national enforcement authorities develop a narrower approach to transparency, consumers can be deprived of the protection guaranteed by EU law. In areas such as consumer credit, where the obligation of the transparent provision of information is the main tool of consumer protection and market integration, ensuring greater consistency in the interpretation of the content of this obligation is the key to ensuring its effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":137938,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy","volume":"178 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3935/CYELP.14.2018.310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article shows that there is a lack of consistency in the interpretation of the meaning and scope of the obligation of traders to provide transparent pre-contractual and contractual information on consumer credit to consumers in EU law. On the basis of an analysis of transparency requirements prescribed by the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Consumer Credit Directive, differences in the understanding of transparency are highlighted. While the transparency test under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive focuses on the question of comprehensibility of credit information, the transparency test under the Consumer Credit Directive focuses on the format, position, length and font size of information. Consequently, the transparency of the same information provided in the course of concluding a consumer credit agreement could be evaluated differently on the basis of these two directives. This lack of consistency in the interpretation of transparency might pose a particular problem for national enforcement authorities. In the example of Croatia, it is demonstrated that the lack of guidance and consistency in the interpretation of various transparency requirements in the area of consumer credit at the EU level leaves space for national enforcement authorities to develop their own understanding of transparency. Where national enforcement authorities develop a narrower approach to transparency, consumers can be deprived of the protection guaranteed by EU law. In areas such as consumer credit, where the obligation of the transparent provision of information is the main tool of consumer protection and market integration, ensuring greater consistency in the interpretation of the content of this obligation is the key to ensuring its effectiveness.
消费者信贷协议(前)合同信息的透明度:一致性是缺失的关键吗?
本文表明,在欧盟法律中,贸易商向消费者提供透明的合同前和合同信息的义务的含义和范围的解释缺乏一致性。在分析《不公平合同条款指令》和《消费者信贷指令》所规定的透明度要求的基础上,突出了对透明度理解的差异。《不公平合同条款指令》下的透明度测试侧重于信用信息的可理解性问题,而《消费者信贷指令》下的透明度测试侧重于信息的格式、位置、长度和字体大小。因此,在订立消费者信贷协议过程中提供的相同信息的透明度可以根据这两项指令进行不同的评估。这种对透明度的解释缺乏一致性可能给国家执法当局造成一个特别的问题。在克罗地亚的例子中,它证明了在欧盟层面上对消费信贷领域的各种透明度要求的解释缺乏指导和一致性,这给国家执法当局留下了发展自己对透明度理解的空间。如果国家执法机构对透明度采取更狭隘的做法,消费者可能会被剥夺欧盟法律所保障的保护。在消费信贷等领域,透明提供信息的义务是保护消费者和市场一体化的主要工具,确保对这一义务内容的解释更加一致是确保其有效性的关键。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信