This is stated in Supreme Court ruling 41/2017 of 20 January and the most recent ruling 108/2020 of 11 March.
In both cases it is based on the provisions of art. 5 of the Law on General Contracting Conditions which affects both individuals and companies. This article states that the company is obliged to provide sufficient information before contracting. Specifically, it must inform "with transparency, clarity, concreteness and simplicity".
Article 7 of the same law states that the client - natural or legal person - must have a "real opportunity" to know the reality of what has been contracted at the time of the conclusion of the contract. And art. 8 points out that the consequence of the company's failure to comply with these information obligations is nullity. Supreme Court case law has interpreted that for there to be a "real opportunity" to know what was contracted at the time the contract was signed, the bank must provide the signed conditions.
Furthermore, the expert recalls that although the Consumer Rights Directive defines "consumer" exclusively as a natural person, Luxembourg case-law extends a "functional criterion" to any purchase of a product or service "outside the scope of the trade".
The Supreme Court has also pointed out that the delimiting criterion is the final destination and not the professional activity. In other words, according to the Supreme Court and Luxembourg, an SME or self-employed person could be interpreted as a final consumer if the purchase was unrelated to their professional activity. Read more
How can we help you? Contact us now.
