By Dr Robert Lewandowski, attorney at law (radca prawny) at Derra, Meyer & Partners in Warsaw
The Polish Supreme Court has recently issued an interesting judgment concerning claims resulting from a bill of exchange. There is a provision in the Polish Civil Code according to which a person being a party liable to a bill of exchange may be sued at the place of the payment of the bill. A company dealing with loans in the market (Borrower) took legal action against a consumer based on non–repayment for the amount of the loan and on a bill of exchange to a district court appropriate for the place of the payment of this bill. The granting of a loan was secured through a blank bill of exchange into which the Borrower entered by themselves the address of the place of the payment of the bill.
The district court denied competency arguing that the lawsuit should be filed to another court appropriate for the residing address of the consumer because the matter is consumer-related. Against this verdict, the Borrower launched an appeal and the court of appeal was also of the opinion that it is doubtful if the place of payment indicated on the bill of exchange may be used to justify the competence of the court at which the consumer will be sued if the place of payment has not been agreed between the parties prior to using the bill and inserted by the Borrower unilaterally.
The matter was finally brought before the Supreme Court for a decision. The Supreme Court shared the view of the court of appeal stating that Council Directive 93/11/EEC should apply in this case. Pursuant to Article 6. 1 of the aforementioned Directive Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms. Taking into account this regulation, the Supreme Court ruled out on 19th October 2017 (file III CZP 42/17) that the place of the payment of the bill of exchange is not valid as legal venue of the court in this case.
0+
