U-I-27/17

Reference no.:
U-I-27/17
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette RS, No. 29/2021 | 18.02.2021
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2021:U.I.27.17
Abstract:
Publisher's Note: The full text of this Decision/Order is available only in Slovene. This is a summary that has been prepared for informational purposes only.
 
The petitioner, a commercial company carrying out a consumer crediting service, challenged the sixth paragraph of Article 12 of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA-2), which limits the amount of possible costs that can be charged due to the late payment of the outstanding obligations determined by a credit contract. According to the mentioned Act, the costs due to late payment must not exceed the actual costs the creditor has incurred due to the consumer's late payment, while at the same time such costs may not be higher than the amount of default interest determined by the law regulating statutory late payment interest.
 
The Constitutional Court held that the challenged regulation does not entail an interference but merely a manner of exercising the right to free economic initiative guaranteed by the first paragraph of Article 74 of the Constitution as by limiting the amount of costs due to late payment, the sphere of free economic initiative is not narrowed intensively enough. In addition, the legislature’s objectives, i.e. consumer protection as a general objective and protection against unfair business practices as a special objective, are closely connected with the object of the statutory regulation. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the legislature had a sound reason for adopting the challenged statutory regulation. The Constitutional Court has particularly stressed that consumer protection is an important value that enjoys constitutional protection on the basis of individual human rights and fundamental freedoms, while at the same time it is a value that holds a special place in EU law as it is a fundamental principle pursuant to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
 
The Constitutional Court further held that the challenged regulation of the maximum amount of costs due to late payment is not inconsistent with the general principle of equality as the position of the petitioner differs from the positions of other commercial entities that do not carry out the service of consumer crediting since the rules of consumer law do not apply to the latter. In addition thereto, the statutory regulation applies in the same manner to all commercial entities that carry out consumer crediting services regardless of whether the creditors are banks or whether they are financially strong or weak.
 
Note:
¤
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Applicant:
BONAFIN ENA, Ljubljana
Date of application:
10.02.2017
Date of decision:
18.02.2021
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is not inconsistent with the Constitution/statute rejection
Document:
AN04045