rulings of the national courts following the curia decision in case c-186/16, andriciuc and others vs banca romaneasca
Clicks: 114
ID: 209287
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
114 views
10 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #194 of 221 articles by views in Environmental monitoring and assessment
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 221 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The CJEU's judgment in Andriciuc and Others vs Banca Românească Case C-186/16 that came in September 2017
is an addition to a growing body of case law on procedural obstacles to consumer protection under Directive 93/13/EEC.
According to the Court, a contractual term must be drafted in plain intelligible language, the information obligations should
be performed by the bank in a manner to make the well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer aware
of both possibility of a rise or fall in the value of the foreign currency and also enabling estimation of the significant economic
consequences of repayment of the loan in the same currency as the currency in which the loan was taken out.
Following a succession of consumer-friendly preliminary rulings from European Court of Justice (Case C-26/13,
Árpád Kásler, Hajnalka Káslerné Rábai v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt and Case C-186/16 Andriciuc and Others v Banca
Românească, bank customers across the European Union are increasingly taking their banks to court. However, there are
still a lot provisions in the national legislations which made the judicial review of unfair contract terms difficult and reveals
the limits of consumer protection under Directive 93/13. Also, we focus on the powers of the national court when dealing with
a term considered to be unfair (civil) courts and the availability of legal remedies in ensuring the effectiveness of the Directive.
Although the CJEU provides interpretation of EU law, the national court alone has jurisdiction to find and assess
the facts in the case before it and to interpret and apply national law. The ruling issued by the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJUE) in the Andriciuc versus Banca Românească case represents a great advantage for some of the European debtors.
In this paper, we intend to examine, starting from the theory of abusive clauses and referring to the jurisprudence of
the European Court of Justice in the matter, to what extent it is possible that under Council Directive 93/13 / EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the national laws of the various Member States to order "freeze of the exchange
rate" or conversion of the currency of the credit into domestic currency
| Reference Key |
calu2018challengesrulings
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Monica CALU;Costel STANCIU |
| Journal | Environmental monitoring and assessment |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.