Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

[Paul.]

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bi...umaff=C-243/08

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

And the relevance here is.......?

[Paul.]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

yeah yeah ill get to that later

[garlok]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

I've just read the summary and it is makes interesting reading. I note that the word "must" is used rather than the loose "shoulds and shalls" of our own laws and rulings.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Ok so what the hell is it all about, or does I has to go read it eye?

[garlok]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

I think Paul will explain the intricacies better than I but from the summary first clause it basically says that as I see it that any unfair clause does not have to be obeyed by the debtor and the debtor does not have to have challenged or proved validity prior.

Very much simplified I know as I will have to have a further read of it all as there seems to be a lot about national courts and jurisdiction. Seemingly the consumer gains more protection from it.

regards
Garlok

[Paul.]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Yup the ruling confirmed it is incumbent on the national court to assess a consumer contract terms for fairness even if the debtor has not raised the issue before the Court.

Soo the court must not sidestep the issue

[garlok]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Thanks Paul. I will read more.

regards
Garlok

[Paul.]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bi...umaff=C-243/08

Thats the full judgment i believe,

can never work out these bloody EU court rulings, poxy things

[PlanB]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

It's dated 2009 isn't it? Am I missing something here or has Paul only just opened his post

[Susie]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

can never work out these bloody EU court rulings, poxy things

What do you think the EU courts are for? Surely you realise their purpose is to make judgements that make little sense and to only take action if its in their own interest!!

[Wishfull]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

ERM can someone explain this in wishfull terms please

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Yup the ruling confirmed it is incumbent on the national court to assess a consumer contract terms for fairness even if the debtor has not raised the issue before the Court.

Soo the court must not sidestep the issue

It's dated 2009 isn't it? Am I missing something here or has Paul only just opened his post

Perhaps Paul has only just learned how to pronounce the name of the defendant?

If he has, I do wish he'd post some clues here.

[garlok]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

I certainly am no fan of the EU or its institutions per se, (I have worked for the Technical Commission) but it may have been 2009 when the hearing was heard in the court. Like many law decisions here and the publishing of reports from public and not so public enquires it can take a long time.

There are a couple of things that perhaps people should be reminded of. Firstly one very senior British judge (Lord) recently made a complete prat of himself by whinging and whining about the European Court because their judes were NOT EVEN ELECTED I quote. Since when have you and I been allowed to cast a vote as to whether he should keep his fat arse in a fancy job?? Hypocrite!

Secondly, it is worth while taking a look at the oaths and conditions under a judge may take his/her role within the European Court of Justice. I would guarantee that NONE of our judges could comply or would comply with the terms and conditions imposed upon them for taking that job. Not enough sponduliks and fiddles in it for a start.

regards
Garlok

[PlanB]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Perhaps Paul has only just learned how to pronounce the name of the defendant?

If he has, I do wish he'd post some clues here.

I have a clue about this. One of Paul's team mates is acting for me against a creditor and I saw this case in his instructions to counsel sent only yesterday. My defence is that a storecard can't be converted into a credit card without my entering into a new agreement under s.51 ("unsolicited credit tokens") . The claimant says it can because there was a clause in the original agreement that says they can vary the terms to whatever they want whenever they bloody feel like it So we're arguing that the clause was unfair and a breach of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) 1999. Then counsel is told to refer to Pannon GSM Zrt v Ezr blah blah. This means the DJ must consider the legal facts surrounding that unfair contract clause. Simples.

This case is really important for us all (no pressure on Mr Wales then) because if won it will have an impact on every other debtor who has had a M & S, Harrods, Debenhams (and loads of other) storecards which morphed into credit cards without signing a new agreement

The fact that the creditor is Spanish should make it easier for them to understand the significance of European law

Plan B
ps shall I start a thread on the case in the protected section? It could help others