1. Unfair Terms in Banking and Financial Contracts, Sweden
- Author
-
Ingvarsson, Torbjörn and Ingvarsson, Torbjörn
- Abstract
Ever since it entered into force in 1995, the directive on unfair contract terms 93/13/EEC (UTD) has been considered of little significance in Swedish national law. The Swedish courts have, for the most part, used other instruments to deal with and remedy unfair terms. Even though rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) indicate that the UTD should be of great importance for assessments in Swedish courts, there are hardly any traces of such a significance regarding either individual agreements or the handling of unfair terms in civil law. It could be said that there are two partly incompatible views concerning how consumer protection should be achieved. The strategy in the Nordic countries has been to protect consumers through actively working ombudsmen, by lowering thresholds for consumers’ access to court, and through a dynamic modification rule. Many of the EU directives that have required Swedish and Nordic law to be changed have primarily revolved around obligations to provide adequate and detailed information to consumers so that they can exercise their rights and make informed choices, paired with — from a Nordic point of view — a quite rigid approach regarding the consequences if these obligations are not followed. The Nordic approach rarely leads to absolutes in terms of valid or void, but is based on assessments in every individual case if the results are suitable, fair, and necessary. There are fundamental differences in approach to the achievement of consumer protection, and in opinion on how important foreseeability and the free movement of goods and services are in relation to the interests of the individual consumer. Currently, there are no signs that the Swedish legislator has any intention to change or amend s 36 Contracts Act. The courts are also quite hesitant to use the UTD in preference to the national approach to modify unfair terms. Increased pressure from the EU, together with new case law from the CJEU, may result in
- Published
- 2023