TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

11

Avtor se kritično opredeljuje do vsebina revizijske odločbe Vrhovnega sodišča RS, tj. sodbe in sklepa II Ips 54/2003 z dne 20. septembra 2023, v enem od številnih sporov v zvezi s pogodbami o dolgoročnih deviznih kreditih v švicarskih frankih. Zatrjuje, da sodišču ni uspelo razviti instrumentarija za poenotenje sodne prakse, temveč se še nadalje zapleta v redefinicije procesnih in materialnih načel in standardov ter v neobrazložene in neutemeljene nedefinirane pojme. Namesto da bi revizijsko sodišče jasno in razumljivo odgovorilo na temeljna vprašanja prakse: ali – in če, v kakšnem obsegu in časovnem okviru – se uporabljajo v sporih pred slovenskimi sodišči pravna pravila, načela in standardi iz direktiv in sodne prakse Sodišča EU; na katera vprašanja pogodbenega formularnega prava ali splošnih pogojev poslovanja je treba v sodnih postopkih odgovoriti, da bi lahko šteli, da je banka opravila svojo pojasnilno dolžnost, itd. Ključno in predvsem pa bi se Vrhovno sodišče RS moralo zavedati, da so bile vse kreditne pogodbe sklenjene ob spoštovanju tedaj veljavnega Zakona o potrošniških kreditih (ZPotK), za katerega zdaj to isto sodišče pravi, da ga ne bo uporabilo, ker je za potrošnike ugodnejša njihova nova razlaga Zakona o varstvu potrošnikov (ZVPot), ki ga v času sklepanja pogodb še ni bilo. Vse torej kaže, da se dogaja retroaktivnost uporabe prava – sklepanje pogodb je potekalo ob popolnem sledenju ZPotK, ki pa ga Vrhovno sodišče RS zdaj de facto razveljavlja za nazaj. Retroaktivnost pa je prepovedana tudi v pravu EU.

The author critiques the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia’s handling of the revision decision, specifically in judgment and decision no. II Ips 54/2003 of 20 September 2023, which concerns a series of long-standing disputes over foreign exchange credit agreements in Swiss francs. The criticism centres on the court’s failure to establish a mechanism for harmonising jurisprudence. Instead, it engages in continuous redefinitions of procedural and material principles, standards, and the use of vague and unfounded terms. The court should have provided clear and understandable answers to fundamental questions in practice: whether, to what extent, and within which timeframe the legal rules, principles, and standards set out in the directives and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU are applied in Slovenian court disputes; and which questions of contractual formulary law or general terms and conditions of business must be addressed in court proceedings to determine whether a bank has met its explanatory duty, etc. almost importantly, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia must acknowledge that all credit agreements were concluded in compliance with the then-valid Consumer Credit Act (ZPotK). However, this court now opt not to apply this act, favouring instead their new interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act (ZVPot), which did not exist at the time the contracts were concluded. This suggests a retroactive application of the law—a conclusion of contracts in full compliance with the ZPotK, which is now effectively annulled retroactively by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia. Notably, such retroactivity is also prohibited under EU law.

Credit Agreement in Swiss Francs: More Complications than Resolutions