In the light of the principle of effectiveness of EU law, should Council Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, in enforcement proceedings, the court responsible for enforcement is required of its own motion to refuse enforcement on the ground that a directly enforceable notarial instrument (enforceable measure) contains an unfair clause, in a case such as that under consideration, in which the procedural rules of the Member State do not allow the court responsible for enforcement to suspend or stay enforcement (upon application by the debtor or of its own motion) until a final substantive decision on whether the term is unfair is given at the end of proceedings for declaratory relief brought by the debtor as consumer?
Unfair provisions in consumer contracts under Directive 93/13 / EEC are void and not binding on consumers.
The Republic of Serbia is not a member state of the EU, so the European Court of Justice decisions are not binding on domestic legislation, however, by ratifying the Stabilization and Association Agreement, the Republic of Serbia has started harmonization with the regulations that form the legal acquis of the European Union, and one of the main areas of harmonization of regulations are precisely regulations in the protection of consumers.
For more information on the impact of the judgment C-40718 and the application of Directive 93/13 / EEC on enforcement procedures in the Republic of Serbia, as well as the implementation of executive public notices in the light of these decisions, contact lawyer Miloš Milošević, partner at Živković Samardžić.