银行单方面关闭账户时消费者人权法律保护的关键问题

Aleksejs Jelisejevs
{"title":"银行单方面关闭账户时消费者人权法律保护的关键问题","authors":"Aleksejs Jelisejevs","doi":"10.30958/ajl.7-4-11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When unilaterally closing a customer’s account due to so-called de-risking, the customer’s interests are not only ignored by the bank but their human rights, including respect for his private life and presumption of innocence, are also severely violated De facto, de-risking stigmatizes discarded consumers as being involved in criminal activity without a court conviction. As a result of the unfair account closure, both the consumer's social and psychological integrity can suffer. Their rights to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and respect for reputation are put in jeopardy. In order to overcome the above collision of interests, this study proposes a doctrinal assessment of consumer's interests that should limit the bank's right to unilaterally terminate the contract by the systemic and teleological interpretation of regulating rules in combination with the general civil principle of good faith. By analogy with the original source of the problem, this tool has been called the “Good Faith-Based Approach\". Therefore, in view of states' affirmative obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, this research shows that the consumers' conflicting interests should take priority in legal protection until the consumer's involvement in money laundering and terrorist financing is established and proven. A certain level of restrictions imposed on the consumers' fundamental rights could be considered justifiable to prevent money laundering as long as the business relationship with the bank continues. However, when rupturing contractual relations within the de-risking paradigm, only close adherence to the good faith principles can guarantee that the bank's rights are not applied by the bank formally and unreasonably, that is, against the sense, meaning, and goals established by the regulating authorities or contrary to the general idea of law. Keywords: Good faith, De-risking, Bank account closure, Unilateral termination of contract, Human rights","PeriodicalId":184533,"journal":{"name":"ATHENS JOURNAL OF LAW","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crucial Issues with Legal Protection of Consumers Human Rights when Banks unilaterally Close Accounts\",\"authors\":\"Aleksejs Jelisejevs\",\"doi\":\"10.30958/ajl.7-4-11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When unilaterally closing a customer’s account due to so-called de-risking, the customer’s interests are not only ignored by the bank but their human rights, including respect for his private life and presumption of innocence, are also severely violated De facto, de-risking stigmatizes discarded consumers as being involved in criminal activity without a court conviction. As a result of the unfair account closure, both the consumer's social and psychological integrity can suffer. Their rights to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and respect for reputation are put in jeopardy. In order to overcome the above collision of interests, this study proposes a doctrinal assessment of consumer's interests that should limit the bank's right to unilaterally terminate the contract by the systemic and teleological interpretation of regulating rules in combination with the general civil principle of good faith. By analogy with the original source of the problem, this tool has been called the “Good Faith-Based Approach\\\". Therefore, in view of states' affirmative obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, this research shows that the consumers' conflicting interests should take priority in legal protection until the consumer's involvement in money laundering and terrorist financing is established and proven. A certain level of restrictions imposed on the consumers' fundamental rights could be considered justifiable to prevent money laundering as long as the business relationship with the bank continues. However, when rupturing contractual relations within the de-risking paradigm, only close adherence to the good faith principles can guarantee that the bank's rights are not applied by the bank formally and unreasonably, that is, against the sense, meaning, and goals established by the regulating authorities or contrary to the general idea of law. Keywords: Good faith, De-risking, Bank account closure, Unilateral termination of contract, Human rights\",\"PeriodicalId\":184533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ATHENS JOURNAL OF LAW\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ATHENS JOURNAL OF LAW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30958/ajl.7-4-11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATHENS JOURNAL OF LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30958/ajl.7-4-11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

由于所谓的去风险而单方面关闭客户的账户,客户的利益不仅被银行忽视,而且他们的人权,包括对其私生活的尊重和无罪推定也受到严重侵犯。事实上,去风险使被抛弃的消费者被污名化,被认为参与了未经法院定罪的犯罪活动。由于不公平的账户关闭,消费者的社会和心理诚信都会受到影响。他们与他人和外部世界建立和发展关系的权利以及对声誉的尊重受到威胁。为了克服上述利益冲突,本研究提出了一种消费者利益的理论评估,通过对规范规则的系统和目的论解释,结合一般民事诚信原则,限制银行单方面解除合同的权利。与问题的根源类似,这个工具被称为“基于诚信的方法”。因此,鉴于各国在《欧洲人权公约》下的肯定义务,本研究表明,在消费者参与洗钱和恐怖主义融资的事实成立和证明之前,消费者的利益冲突应优先得到法律保护。只要与银行的业务关系继续存在,对消费者的基本权利施加一定程度的限制可以被认为是合理的,以防止洗钱。然而,在去风险范式下,当合同关系破裂时,只有严格遵守诚信原则,才能保证银行的权利不会被银行正式地、不合理地行使,即违背监管当局确立的意义、意义和目标,或违背法律的一般理念。关键词:诚信、去风险、银行账户关闭、单方解除合同、人权
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Crucial Issues with Legal Protection of Consumers Human Rights when Banks unilaterally Close Accounts
When unilaterally closing a customer’s account due to so-called de-risking, the customer’s interests are not only ignored by the bank but their human rights, including respect for his private life and presumption of innocence, are also severely violated De facto, de-risking stigmatizes discarded consumers as being involved in criminal activity without a court conviction. As a result of the unfair account closure, both the consumer's social and psychological integrity can suffer. Their rights to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and respect for reputation are put in jeopardy. In order to overcome the above collision of interests, this study proposes a doctrinal assessment of consumer's interests that should limit the bank's right to unilaterally terminate the contract by the systemic and teleological interpretation of regulating rules in combination with the general civil principle of good faith. By analogy with the original source of the problem, this tool has been called the “Good Faith-Based Approach". Therefore, in view of states' affirmative obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, this research shows that the consumers' conflicting interests should take priority in legal protection until the consumer's involvement in money laundering and terrorist financing is established and proven. A certain level of restrictions imposed on the consumers' fundamental rights could be considered justifiable to prevent money laundering as long as the business relationship with the bank continues. However, when rupturing contractual relations within the de-risking paradigm, only close adherence to the good faith principles can guarantee that the bank's rights are not applied by the bank formally and unreasonably, that is, against the sense, meaning, and goals established by the regulating authorities or contrary to the general idea of law. Keywords: Good faith, De-risking, Bank account closure, Unilateral termination of contract, Human rights
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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