Ato the factual and legal context in which the loan agreements were concluded. The Advocate General takes into account two determining elements . First he shows that foreign currency loan contracts are generally charged a lower interest rate than domestic currency loans in return for the foreign exchange risk they may incur in the event of a devaluation of the domestic currency. Secondly he shows that the bank granted the loans in CHF and that it is entitled to obtain repayment of those loans in the same currency. According to the advocate general the obligation to repay the monthly installments in CHF cannot be considered an accessory element of the contract but is indeed part of the key elements of the foreign currency loan contract.
The Advocate General deduces from this that the clause contained in a loan contract according to Country Email List which the borrower must repay the amount in the same currency in which it was granted falls under the notion of main object of the contract . Regarding the second question addressed to the Court the general advocate states that the requirement that a contractual clause must be clearly and intelligibly expressed requires that the clause in dispute be understood by the consumer both formally and grammatically and and in terms of its concrete scope.
Thus an average consumer normally informed and sufficiently attentive and informed should not only know the possibility of appreciation or depreciation of the foreign currency but should also be able to assess the consequences of such a clause on his financial obligations. be expressed clearly and intelligibly cannot however go so far as to require the professional to anticipate unforeseeable subsequent developments such as fluctuations in the exchange rates of the currencies in question in question nor to inform the consumer about them and to bear their consequences. Finally the general advocate pronounces on the moment at.
發表於 13:01:06
