@misc{9226405,
  abstract     = {{In 1993, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, was adopted with the aim of strengthening consumer protection and enhancing the harmonisation of contract law among Member States. According to Article 3(1) of the Directive, a contractual term shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. The Directive also contains an indicative and non-binding list (a “grey list”) in Article 3(3) of contractual terms that may be considered unfair.
In Sweden, the Directive was incorporated through the Act on Contractual Terms and Conditions in Consumer Relations (below the Act). The Swedish legislation was drafted in more general terms than the wording of the Directive. Rather than expressly referring to the criteria of good faith and significant imbalance, Section 3 of the Act merely provides that regard must be given to the price and other relevant circumstances. Furthermore, the grey list was not incorporated into statutory text itself but was instead reproduced solely in the preparatory works. Despite the differences between the Swedish and EU-law formulations, the Government maintains in the preparatory works that the Swedish legislation provides consumer protection at least equivalent to that guaranteed by the Directive.
Since the incorporation of the Directive during the 1990s, EU law has undergone significant legal development. Through numerous judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the criteria set out in Article 3(1) and emphasised the importance of ensuring effective consumer protection. At the same time, Section 3 of the Act has retained the same general formulation since the enactment of the law.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether the current formulation of Section 3 of the Act provides sufficiently effective consumer protection in relation to the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. Accordingly, the thesis compares the Swedish regulation with the corresponding assessment of unfairness under Article 3 of the Directive. By applying both a doctrinal legal method and an EU-law method, Swedish law is analysed based on legislation, preparatory works, case law, and legal doctrine in the light of the Directive and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Emphasis is placed on NJA 2025 s. 864, in which the Supreme Court of Sweden explicitly departed from the Government’s assessment in the preparatory works.
Overall, the thesis concludes that the broadly formulated provision in Section 3 of the Act does not satisfy the EU-law requirement of effective consumer protection. Swedish legislation is therefore in need of a reform, with a clearer focus on the assessment criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of the Directive.}},
  author       = {{Rignell, Lisen}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{En oskälighetsbedömning i behov av förändring? - Analys av 3 § AVLK i förhållande till EU-rättens krav på ett effektivt konsumentskydd}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}