The High Court refused the revision of the case of French Switzerland. The claim from the objections was rejected unfounded and therefore they reinforced the lower courts, found that the loan contract was unrequited, reports from the Office of the Prosecutor's Office.
"According to the High Court Assembly, who made a decision on the case, an explanatory responsibility was made; Bank is done correctly and fairly in this case, and so should be considered on the # 39; The case for making money-making money back-ups related to Swiss currency is clear and easy to understand. So, the Chamber did no other assessment of the fairness (one) of its main theme,"they explained in court.
In the current case, the three applicants ask, in the context of a main claim, that the two credit unions, which were based on a number of legal establishments, were adjudged: a loan loan decision was equivalent to the mandatory rules ; In my opinion, the agreement of the credit union had not been unified; It would also be for the Nazi contract, and their decision, the bank should not fulfill its obligation.
Court definition is fully published:
In deciding its reasoning, the High Court says, among other things, that the level of user information is to reach a certain degree of endeavor, that Court judgment judgment material Justice in Andriciuc's case, which defines the guidance for a & # 39; Assessing the suitability of fulfilling their explanatory responsibility, a proper way to provide information, for example by making graphic displays and calculations. In addition, since these special requirements were not at the time of completing their credentials credit credentials; Declaration of law – both national and international law of law -. The lender must be aware of the potential to increase or reduce the value of foreign currency in which he or she must pay the loan, and have an opportunity to assess the economic effects of the & It could be important in the state of its position; charter and its effect on the commitments made, that is, on the total loan cost. It must be given to take the risk of money that it may be difficult to behave when it protects from the money in which it receives income.
On the other hand, the High Court stresses that there is no concern to the user according to the individual's concept as a reasonable, attentive, independent, and inexpensive subject that is capable of take accountable, economic, life and personal decisions with which it is; the shape of his life. As human freedom and dignity is obstructed by sub-care, people may have the same disturbance. The balance between a man and another in the concrete case represents a responsibility for interpretation, that is, a tool that allows the user to gain knowledge of himself with the necessary information, decide what he thinks best. It can choose a risk and higher expected benefits, or for reduced benefits at a lower risk. The law can not show the person what is good and direct for what is a useful and good thinking for the normal user.
In this case, the panel of judges in which the Supreme Court and Judges are mocking. Rudi Štravs as President and Jan Zobecmag. Nina Betetto, dr. Mateja Končina Peternelthere Tomaž Pavčnik as members.