Subject: Reminder proceedings
On 1 February 2017, the Act on Reminder Proceedings No. 307/2016 entered into force. According to this law, one court is responsible for issuing payment orders in summary proceedings.
146 697 payment orders were issued between 1 October 2019 and 31 July 2021.
92 000 payment orders have become final.
Article 7(1) of EU Directive 93/13 obliges Member States to ensure that adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers.
Under Paragraph 15(6) of the Act on Reminder Proceedings, it is a senior judicial officer, not a judge, who decides on the merits of the case.
In judgment C-448/17 (paragraph 2), the Court held that:
Directive 93/13 is to be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for a judicial officer to issue a decision, since that right belongs only to the judge.
If a breach of consumer rights is found, what action will the Commission take to ensure compliance with EU law?
Answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the European Commission
(7 January 2022)
Directive 93/13/EEC (1) guarantees that consumers are not bound by unfair terms and that they have effective remedies against such terms.
To this end, Member States must comply with the procedural requirements developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union based on Directive 93/13/EEC. Under Article 7(1) and the effectiveness principle (2), national law has to provide remedies, which allow consumers to invoke the unfairness of contract terms, and those remedies have to be effective.
In particular, national courts must assess the unfairness of contract terms of their own motion if needed, and consumers must have available interim measures for stopping or suspending enforcement procedures while national courts assess the possible unfairness of relevant contract terms (3).
As the Commission pointed out in its answer to written questions E-003695/2019, E-000669/2020 and E-000671/2020, in connection with an infringement procedure, which the Commission opened in April 2013 and closed in March 2018, Slovakia made significant changes to its legislation in the period 2014-2017.
However, the Commission is monitoring the situation, including compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C- 448/17 (4), and will address the issue with the Slovak authorities as necessary (5).
⋅1∙ Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.
⋅2∙ Case C-632/17 PKO, paragraph 43; Case C-567/13 Nóra Baczó, paragraphs 52 and 59.
⋅3∙ See Section 5 of Commission Notice — Guidance on the interpretation and application of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer
contracts, OJ C 323, 27.9.2019, p. 4, COM(2019) 5325 final.
⋅4∙ Case C-448/17 EOS KSI Slovensko s.r.o. v Ján Danko and Margita Danková.
⋅5∙ Communication from the Commission — EC law: Better results through better application, C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017.
