| Abstract [eng] |
The subject of this Master paper is “Peculiarities and Problems of Consumer Rights Protection in Mortgage Legal Relationships”. Pledge has been known for a very long time, and the most convenient way of it - a mortgage, is still used till these days. The consumer mortgage is a relatively new institution that has only been taken more seriously since 2008 financial crisis. In order to avoid the consequences of the crisis in the future, a resolution of the European Parliament and of the Council was adopted at EU level in 2014. Directive 2014/17/ES on consumer credit agreements relating to residential immovable property had to be transposed to national law by all member states till March of 2016. The main purpose of the Directive is to ensure that consumer receives a high level of protection when concluding credit agreements relating to immovable property. The main safeguards enshrined in the Directive are the assessment of consumer solvency and the obligation to provide information. This paper raises questions about the extent to which these safeguards can harm or help consumers. A strict assessment of the borrower's solvency may mean that he or she will not receive a home loan. The obligation to inform the consumer of all the nuances of the contract is very broad, so it is possible that a large amount of information will further mislead the consumer. Nevertheless, this legislation is a major step forward in protecting the consumer, who is considered to be a vulnerable party, but a deeper analysis raises the question of how much this regulation will help in the face of a new crisis. Consumer protection in mortgage legal relationships is also relevant in case law. In order to protect consumers, courts must ex officio identify the contract as a consumer contract and monitor unfair contract terms. This practice is reflected in the decisions of the ECJ and the SCL. The SCL clearly and purposefully refers to the case law of the ECJ, but a slightly different situation can be seen in the courts of Trial and Appeal. The judgments of these courts show that the courts often interpret consumer contracts narrowly, thus not ensuring full protection of the weaker party (the consumer). |
