Advanced

Skäl att fundera på oskälighet - En studie om avtalsvillkorsdirektivets genomslag i svensk rätt

Carlsson, Marcus LU (2020) JURM02 20201
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats undersöker hur avtalsvillkorsdirektivet påverkar bedömningen av oskäliga avtalsvillkor i avtal mellan konsument och näringsidkare i svensk rätt. Direktivet består av artiklar som anger vad som ska utgöra ett oskäligt avtalsvillkor samt de konsekvenser som följer av ett sådant avtalsvillkor. Direktivets artiklar om oskäliga avtalsvillkor har införlivats i svensk rätt genom 36 § avtalslagen. Eftersom EU-rätten har företräde framför nationell rätt måste 36 § avtalslagen tolkas på det sätt som följer av direktivet och EU-domstolens rättspraxis. Därför utreder uppsatsen hur 36 § avtalslagen ska tillämpas på avtalsvillkor som omfattas av direktivet.

Slutsatsen är att 36 § avtalslagen ska tillämpas med beaktande av direktivets... (More)
Denna uppsats undersöker hur avtalsvillkorsdirektivet påverkar bedömningen av oskäliga avtalsvillkor i avtal mellan konsument och näringsidkare i svensk rätt. Direktivet består av artiklar som anger vad som ska utgöra ett oskäligt avtalsvillkor samt de konsekvenser som följer av ett sådant avtalsvillkor. Direktivets artiklar om oskäliga avtalsvillkor har införlivats i svensk rätt genom 36 § avtalslagen. Eftersom EU-rätten har företräde framför nationell rätt måste 36 § avtalslagen tolkas på det sätt som följer av direktivet och EU-domstolens rättspraxis. Därför utreder uppsatsen hur 36 § avtalslagen ska tillämpas på avtalsvillkor som omfattas av direktivet.

Slutsatsen är att 36 § avtalslagen ska tillämpas med beaktande av direktivets bedömningsgrunder och direktivets vägledande lista på oskäliga avtalsvillkor. Samtidigt begränsas tillämpningen genom att senare inträffade förhållanden inte får beaktas till konsumentens nackdel. Konsekvensen av ett oskäligt avtalsvillkor är ogiltighet. Det är därför inte möjligt att jämka ett oskäligt avtalsvillkor som omfattas av direktivet.

I syfte att ge avtalsvillkorsdirektivet ett effektivt genomslag i nationell rätt har EU-domstolen slagit fast att en nationell domstol måste vara aktiv då den har att bedöma ett avtalsvillkor som omfattas av direktivet. Uppsatsen syftar därför till att utreda hur EU-domstolens rättspraxis påverkar 17 kap. 3 § 2 p. och 42 kap. 8 § 2 st. rättegångsbalken.

Det följer av EU-domstolens rättspraxis att en svensk domstol självmant ska pröva om ett avtalsvillkor är oskäligt. Om domstolen finner att ett avtalsvillkor är oskäligt ska domstolen uppmärksamma konsumenten på det oskäliga avtalsvillkoret. Om konsumenten inte uttryckligen invänder får domstolen inte tillämpa avtalsvillkoret. Slutsatsen i denna utredning är att det inte föreligger något krav på åberopande av rättsfakta för konsumenten för att avtalsvillkoret ska ogiltigförklaras vid tillämpning av 17 kap. 3 § 2 p rättegångsbalken. 42 kap. 8 § 2 st. rättegångsbalken preciseras endast av EU-domstolens rättspraxis.

Därutöver behandlar uppsatsen frågan om relevant lagstiftning bör anpassas för att överensstämma med avtalsvillkorsdirektivet och EU-domstolens praxis. Slutsatsen är att 36 § avtalslagen bör anpassas. Det främsta skälet för den slutsatsen är att lagtexten i dagsläget tillåter jämkning, vilket inte överensstämmer med EU-domstolens praxis. Det finns även skäl att anpassa 17 kap. 3 § 2 p. rättegångsbalken. Anledningen är att tillämpningen av bestämmelsen i betydande grad skiljer sig från EU-domstolens rättspraxis. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to examine how the Unfair Contract Terms Directive affects the assessment of unfair contract terms in an agreement between a seller or supplier and a consumer under Swedish law. The directive consists of articles prescribing what an unfair contract term is and the consequences of such a contract term. The articles of the directive regarding unfair contract terms have been implemented in Swedish law in article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act. The article has to be interpreted in compliance with EU law. Therefore, this essay examines how article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act has to be applied on contract terms within the scope of application of the directive.

The conclusion is that article 36 has to be... (More)
The purpose of this essay is to examine how the Unfair Contract Terms Directive affects the assessment of unfair contract terms in an agreement between a seller or supplier and a consumer under Swedish law. The directive consists of articles prescribing what an unfair contract term is and the consequences of such a contract term. The articles of the directive regarding unfair contract terms have been implemented in Swedish law in article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act. The article has to be interpreted in compliance with EU law. Therefore, this essay examines how article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act has to be applied on contract terms within the scope of application of the directive.

The conclusion is that article 36 has to be applied so it covers the basis for assessment prescribed in the directive and the directives indicative list of unfair contract terms. Also, the scope of application is limited in such a way that the article cannot consider imbalance occurring during the performance of the contract to the disadvantage of the consumer. Furthermore, the consequence of an unfair contract term is that it is non-binding for the consumer. Therefore, it is not possible to change the content of an unfair contract term.

In order to give the directive an effective impact in the member states, the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has concluded that a national court has certain obligations when facing a contract term within the scope of application of the directive. Therefore, the purpose of the essay is to examine how case law affects section 17 article 3(2) and chapter 42 article 8(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

The conclusion is that the ECJ case law contains an obligation for a Swedish court to review unfairness ex officio. Also, if the court finds a contract term unfair, the court is obliged to inform the consumer of the unfairness. The court then has to declare the contract term non-binding for the consumer, if the consumer does not oppose it. In conclusion, there is no obligation for the consumer to refer to the unfairness with application of section 17 article 3(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. Chapter 42 article 8(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure is only more stringent following ECJ case law.

Furthermore, the essay deals with the question of whether Swedish law has to be adjusted to comply with the directive and ECJ case law. The conclusion is that article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act has to be adjusted. The primary reason for this is that the article allow changing the content of an unfair contract term, which is not in compliance with ECJ case law. Also, there are reasons to adjust section 17 article 3(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. The main reason for this is that the application of the article to a significant extent differs from ECJ case law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Carlsson, Marcus LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Reason to consider unfairness - A study of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and impact on Swedish law
course
JURM02 20201
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
avtalsrätt, EU-rätt, konsumenträtt
language
Swedish
id
9010424
date added to LUP
2020-06-16 10:58:14
date last changed
2020-06-16 10:58:14
@misc{9010424,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this essay is to examine how the Unfair Contract Terms Directive affects the assessment of unfair contract terms in an agreement between a seller or supplier and a consumer under Swedish law. The directive consists of articles prescribing what an unfair contract term is and the consequences of such a contract term. The articles of the directive regarding unfair contract terms have been implemented in Swedish law in article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act. The article has to be interpreted in compliance with EU law. Therefore, this essay examines how article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act has to be applied on contract terms within the scope of application of the directive. 

The conclusion is that article 36 has to be applied so it covers the basis for assessment prescribed in the directive and the directives indicative list of unfair contract terms. Also, the scope of application is limited in such a way that the article cannot consider imbalance occurring during the performance of the contract to the disadvantage of the consumer. Furthermore, the consequence of an unfair contract term is that it is non-binding for the consumer. Therefore, it is not possible to change the content of an unfair contract term. 

In order to give the directive an effective impact in the member states, the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has concluded that a national court has certain obligations when facing a contract term within the scope of application of the directive. Therefore, the purpose of the essay is to examine how case law affects section 17 article 3(2) and chapter 42 article 8(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. 

The conclusion is that the ECJ case law contains an obligation for a Swedish court to review unfairness ex officio. Also, if the court finds a contract term unfair, the court is obliged to inform the consumer of the unfairness. The court then has to declare the contract term non-binding for the consumer, if the consumer does not oppose it. In conclusion, there is no obligation for the consumer to refer to the unfairness with application of section 17 article 3(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. Chapter 42 article 8(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure is only more stringent following ECJ case law. 

Furthermore, the essay deals with the question of whether Swedish law has to be adjusted to comply with the directive and ECJ case law. The conclusion is that article 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act has to be adjusted. The primary reason for this is that the article allow changing the content of an unfair contract term, which is not in compliance with ECJ case law. Also, there are reasons to adjust section 17 article 3(2) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. The main reason for this is that the application of the article to a significant extent differs from ECJ case law.},
  author       = {Carlsson, Marcus},
  keyword      = {avtalsrätt,EU-rätt,konsumenträtt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Skäl att fundera på oskälighet - En studie om avtalsvillkorsdirektivets genomslag i svensk rätt},
  year         = {2020},
}