'Unfair terms, protective nullity and Courts powers: certain reference points after JőrÖs and Asbeek Brusses rulings.' - 'SENTENTIA. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences' - NotaBene.ru
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the Journal > Requirements for publication > Council of Editors > Peer-review process > Article retraction > Ethics > Online First Pre-Publication > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Article Processing Charge > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy > Publication Terms
Journals in science databases
About the Journal
MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
SENTENTIA. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
Reference:

Unfair terms, protective nullity and Courts powers: certain reference points after JőrÖs and Asbeek Brusses rulings.

Rosalba Alessi

Professor, department of Civil Law, University of Palermo

90133, Italiya, Palermo, St. Piazza Marina 61

danilenko_d@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/1339-3057.2015.2.15603

Received:

17-06-2015


Published:

09-07-2015


Abstract: The article examines the cases of Jőrös (Case C- 397/11,) and Asbeek Brusse,(case C-488-11), both dated 30 may 2013, as a starting point for a more general analysis of the ECJ’s approach to the legal consequences to be drawn by the national Court from finding that a contractual term is unfair. The work focuses on the question of whether the interest of the consumer – at the basis of the remedy under consideration – is compatible with the general public interest and with the duty of the National Court to declare the nullity of its own motion, perhaps in contrast with the individual interest of the party. The paper criticizes the “Pannon ruling”, and points out how the more recent Banif Plus judgment (2012) has refined that ruling, even when the partial nullity is concerned. If the duty of the National Court to declare the nullity of its own motion aims to guarantee general interest and the values held by the Constitution – the A. argues – there is no way the consumer can “oppose” the declaration and express his own interest to preserve the contract. Consistently with this idea of consumer protection, in the recent Jőrös judgment the ECJ partially reviewed the so called Perenicova jurisprudence, and clarifies that the National Court is required to determine whether or not the contract can continue to maintain its effects on the basis of objective criteria.


Keywords:

European Union, European Union law, European market, European Court, case law, judgment, court rulings, consumer contracts, unfair terms, protective nullity

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.