The Unfair Terms Directive 93/13/EEC Left Behind Its 30 Years: Quo Vadis?

Abstract

The Unfair Terms Directive came into force on 5 April 1993. The Directive has two objectives: the effective protection of consumers and contributing to the establishment of the internal market through minimum harmonization. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has shaped the application of the Directive in national laws through the preliminary ruling procedure. However, the CJEU has refrained from determining specific criteria for the unfair contract terms and ultimately left the evaluation of these terms’ existence in cases to the national courts. Thus, the enforcement of the Directive diverges among member states. Additionally, the CJEU’s interpretation of the legal sanction of unfair contract terms prevents the uniform application of the Directive. This article aims to give information on the attempts to amend the Directive which are mostly unsuccessful, address the objectives and the scope of the Directive, explore the CJEU’s case law on the Directive, and examine whether the CJEU’s case law complies with the Directive’s purposes.

Keywords

• Individual negotiation
• unfair contract terms
• transparency requirements
• harmonization
• The Court of Justice of the European Union

Yürürlüğe Girişinin Otuzuncu Yılını Geride Bırakan 93/13/EEC Sayılı Avrupa Birliği Haksız Şartlar Direktifi: Quo Vadis?

Öz

93/13/EEC sayılı Avrupa Birliği Haksız Şartlar Direktifi, 5 Nisan 1993 tarihinde yürürlüğe girmiştir. Direktif, tüketicilerin satıcı veya sağlayıcıların sunduğu ve taraflarca bireysel müzakere konusu edilmeyen sözleşme koşullarına karşı etkili bir şekilde korunması ve asgari uyumlaştırma yoluyla iç pazarın kurulmasına katkı sağlanması amacıyla öngörülmüştür. Direktif’in üye devletlerdeki uygulaması, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın (ABAD) ön karar prosedürüyle önüne gelen olaylarda verdiği kararlarla şekillenmektedir. Fakat, ABAD haksız şartlara ilişkin kesin kıstaslar belirlemekten kaçınmaktadır. Bunun yerine, ABAD, haksız şartlar hakkında karar verme işini iç hukuktaki düzenlemeleri dikkate almaları kaydıyla yerel mahkemelere bırakmaktadır. Ancak üye devletlerin iç hukuk düzenlemeleri birbirinden farklı olduğu için üye devletlerde haksız şart teşkil eden sözleşme hükümleri yeknesak değildir. ABAD’ın haksız şart sayılan sözleşme hükümlerinin hukuki yaptırımına yönelik yorum faaliyeti de Direktif’in yeknesak biçimde uygulanmasını engellemektedir. Çalışmamızda Direktif’in değiştirilmesine yönelik yasama önerileri, Direktif’in amacı ve uygulama alanı hakkında bilgi verildikten sonra, ABAD kararları ışığında Direktif’in uygulaması üzerinde durulmuş ve Direktif’in uygulamasının bunun öngörülmesindeki amaçlara hizmet edip etmediği değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bireysel müzakere
• haksız şartlar
• saydamlık denetimi
• yeknesaklık
• ABAD

Kaynakça

1. Basedow, Jürgen. “The Court of Justice and Private Law: Vacillations, General Principles and the Architecture of the European Judiciary”. European Review of Private Law 18, sy 3 (2010): 443-74.
2. Büyüksağiş, Erdem ve Defne Kahveci. “E-Ticaret Platformlarının Satılanın Ayıplarından Sorumluluğu”. Yaşar Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 19, sy Özel Sayı (2022): 125-74.
3. Cámara Lapuente, Sergio. “Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in the European Union: The Innovative Role of the CJEU’s Case Law”. İçinde Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts, editör Yeşim M. Atamer ve Pascal Pichonnaz, 67-101. Cham: Springer, 2020.
4. Chen, Zhen. “The Classification of Dual-Purpose Contracts in European Private International Law”. European Review of Private Law 31, sy 5 (2023): 909-32.
5. “Commission Notice: Guidance on the Interpretation and Application of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts,” 27 Eylül 2019.
6. Farina, Marco. “Unfair Terms and Supplementation of the Contract”. European Review of Private Law 29, sy 3 (2021): 441-62.
7. Fornasier, Matteo. “A Short Biography of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive on the Occasion of Its 30th Anniversary”. European Review of Private Law 31, sy 6 (2023): 1143-74.
8. ———. “Die Anwendung der Klauselrichtlinie im Bereich des vollharmonisierten europäischen Vertragsrechts – Urteil des EuGH (Erste Kammer) vom 11. November 2020”. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 0, sy 2 (2022): 439-55.

9. Gavrilovic, Nenad. “The Unfair Contract Terms Directive through the Practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Interpretation of the European Union: Interpretation or Something More?” European Review of Contract Law 9, sy 2 (2013): 163-80.
10. Hatzopoulos, Vassilis, ve Sofia Roma. “Caring for Sharing? Collaborative Economy under EU Law”. Common Market Law Review 54, sy 1 (2017): 81-127.
11. Herresthal, Carsten. “Die unionsrechtlichen Vorgaben bei unwirksamen AGB-Klauseln”. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 0, sy 17 (2023): 1161-67.
12. Hulmák, Milan. “The Consequences of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts”. The Law Quarterly 12, sy 1 (2022): 53-76.
13. Iamiceli, Paola. “The ‘Punitive Nullity’ of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts and the Role of National Courts: A Principle-Based Analysis”. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 12, sy 4 (2023): 142-50.
14. Jerez Delgado, Carmen, ve Francisco Verdún Pérez. “Thirty Years On: The Implementation of Directive 93/13 On Unfair Terms in Spain A Joint and Progressive Task of Legislators and Judges”. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 12, sy 1 (2023): 35-44.
15. Lehmann, Matthias, ve Danny Busch. “Make it Stringent: A Plea for an Unfair Terms Regulation”. European Review of Private Law 31, sy 6 (1196 1175): 2023.
16. Loos, Marco B.M. “No Plan B for Traders Using Unfair Terms: Court of Justice Excludes Application of Default Rules Replacing an Unfair Term - Case Note on Dexia Nederland (Joint Cases C-229/19 and 289/19)”. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 1, sy 11 (2022): 13-26.
17. Mcmeel,Gerard. Unfair Contract Terms Proviisons in CESL. Brussels: European Parliament, 2012.
18. Micklitz, Hans-W., Natali Helberger, Betül Kas, Monika Namysłowska, Laurens Naudts, Peter Rott, Marijn Sax, ve Michael Veale. “Towards Digital Fairness”. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 13, sy 1 (2024): 24-30.
19. Micklitz, Hans-W., ve Norbert Reich. “The Court and Sleeping Beauty: The Revival of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD)”. Common Market Law Review 51, sy 3 (2014): 708-71.
20. Möslein, Florian. “Digitized Terms: The Regulation of Standard Contract Terms in the Digital Age”. European Review of Contract Law 19, sy 4 (2023): 300-320.
21. Sørensen, Marie Jull, Peter Rott, ve Karin Sein. Response of the European Law Institute: European Commission’s Public Consultation on Digital Fairness – Fitness Check on EU Consumer Law,. Vienna, 2023.
22. Trstenjak, Verica. “Procedural Aspects of European Consumer Protection Law and the Case Law of the CJEU”. European Review of Private Law 21, sy 2 (2013): 451-78.
23. Weatherill, Stephen. “The Consumer Rights Directive: How and Why A Quest for “Coherence” Has (Largely) Failed.” Common Market Law Review 49, sy 4 (2012): 1279-317.