The High Court of Cassation and Justice decided that, considering the clause inserted in the mortgage loan, according to which, in case an amicable solution is not possible, the dispute shall be submitted to the competent court, under the law, such clause would imply a voluntary extension of the court`s jurisdiction at the headquarters of the bank, thus meeting all the conditions to be considered abusive, as per the interpretation given by the Council`s Directive no. 93/13 / EEC in conjunction with European Union rules applicable to consumer credit contracts, indicating that the court conducted an analysis specific to judicial inquiries.
Therefore, in this case, the clause conferring jurisdiction is not effective and the rule of common law is not applicable, as it is stipulated by art. 107 para. (1) New Civ. Proc. Code, instead the rule stated in art. 113 para. (1) pt. 8 Civ. Proc. Code is applicable, so that the High Court established the jurisdiction in favor of the consumer’s home court, to which the file will be sent in order to solve the dispute. (Decision no. 1680, 17 June 2015, issued by Civil Section II of the High Court of Cassation and Justice covering negative conflict of jurisdiction).
:: The source: JURIDICE.ro
Adina Elena OPREA