宣布不公平的期限后赔偿请求的诉讼时效。评议法院2022年9月8日判决(C-80/21至C-82/21合案)

Maciej Gutowski
{"title":"宣布不公平的期限后赔偿请求的诉讼时效。评议法院2022年9月8日判决(C-80/21至C-82/21合案)","authors":"Maciej Gutowski","doi":"10.1515/ercl-2023-2014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article refers to the problem of Statute of limitations for restitution claims after a term is declared unfair in light of the ECJ judgment of 8th of September 2022 (Joined Cases C-80/21 to C-82/21). In light of the ECJ judgment one may not argue that if there was a sanction that would deprive a consumer effective claim for restitution because of excessive effect of statute of limitation, such mechanism would be contrary to the aim of protection under Directive 93/13. The regulation contained in Directive 93/13 should not allow for 10‑year limitation period for a consumer’s action for the restitution of the payments made under 30-years lasting bank loan contract if the limitation period passed before the consumers claim has been payable. The ECJ judgment might be perceived as somewhat superfluous, because such an effect would also be difficult to accept that in the light of the principles of the civil law – certainly Polish law, which should give a ground for the assumption provided in the question submitted by the referring court. However, the ECJ ruling itself does not seem to be controversial.","PeriodicalId":495666,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Contract Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Statute of Limitations for Restitution Claims after a Term is Declared Unfair. Some Remarks on the CJEU Judgment of 8th of September 2022 (Joined Cases C-80/21 to C-82/21)\",\"authors\":\"Maciej Gutowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ercl-2023-2014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The article refers to the problem of Statute of limitations for restitution claims after a term is declared unfair in light of the ECJ judgment of 8th of September 2022 (Joined Cases C-80/21 to C-82/21). In light of the ECJ judgment one may not argue that if there was a sanction that would deprive a consumer effective claim for restitution because of excessive effect of statute of limitation, such mechanism would be contrary to the aim of protection under Directive 93/13. The regulation contained in Directive 93/13 should not allow for 10‑year limitation period for a consumer’s action for the restitution of the payments made under 30-years lasting bank loan contract if the limitation period passed before the consumers claim has been payable. The ECJ judgment might be perceived as somewhat superfluous, because such an effect would also be difficult to accept that in the light of the principles of the civil law – certainly Polish law, which should give a ground for the assumption provided in the question submitted by the referring court. However, the ECJ ruling itself does not seem to be controversial.\",\"PeriodicalId\":495666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Review of Contract Law\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Review of Contract Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ercl-2023-2014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Contract Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ercl-2023-2014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文根据欧洲法院2022年9月8日的判决(合并案例C-80/21至C-82/21),探讨了判决不公平后赔偿请求的诉讼时效问题。根据欧洲法院的判决,人们可能不会争辩说,如果存在一种制裁,会因为法定时效的过度影响而剥夺消费者有效的赔偿要求,这种机制将违背指令93/13下的保护目的。第93/13号指令所载的法规不应允许消费者对30年期银行贷款合同项下的付款进行10年的诉讼时效期,如果时效期在消费者的索赔支付之前已经过去。欧洲法院的判决可能被认为是有些多余的,因为根据民法的原则- -当然是波兰法律- -这种效果也难以接受,因为波兰法律应该为提交法院提出的问题中所提供的假设提供依据。然而,欧洲法院的裁决本身似乎没有争议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Statute of Limitations for Restitution Claims after a Term is Declared Unfair. Some Remarks on the CJEU Judgment of 8th of September 2022 (Joined Cases C-80/21 to C-82/21)
Abstract The article refers to the problem of Statute of limitations for restitution claims after a term is declared unfair in light of the ECJ judgment of 8th of September 2022 (Joined Cases C-80/21 to C-82/21). In light of the ECJ judgment one may not argue that if there was a sanction that would deprive a consumer effective claim for restitution because of excessive effect of statute of limitation, such mechanism would be contrary to the aim of protection under Directive 93/13. The regulation contained in Directive 93/13 should not allow for 10‑year limitation period for a consumer’s action for the restitution of the payments made under 30-years lasting bank loan contract if the limitation period passed before the consumers claim has been payable. The ECJ judgment might be perceived as somewhat superfluous, because such an effect would also be difficult to accept that in the light of the principles of the civil law – certainly Polish law, which should give a ground for the assumption provided in the question submitted by the referring court. However, the ECJ ruling itself does not seem to be controversial.
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