Revolution. According to the Constitutional Court, the weaker party may object abuse of bill of exchange
JUDr. Jakub Vozáb, PhD. 04.03.2017
2017–01–31 Constitutional Court, Brno, TZ 8/2017
III. the Senate of the Constitutional Court (Judge Rapporteur Jan Filip) upheld the complainant's constitutional complaint and annulled the Supreme Court's ruling, the judgment of the High Court in Prague and the judgment of the Regional Court in Pilsen, violating the complainant's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.
In the present case, the general courts imposed on the applicant, as the bill of exchange guarantor, the obligation to pay the amount of CZK 1,700,632 with accessories, bill of exchange fees and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings to the owner of the bill of exchange (the intervener in this case). The blank bill of exchange in question was issued by the deceased type of complainant, who undertook to pay the intervener the amount of the bill of exchange, which the intervener was entitled to fill in according to the bill of exchange agreement agreed in the loan agreement. she undertook this bill of exchange as a bill of exchange hostage. The complainant, who objected in vain during the court proceedings that she had not signed any bill of exchange and was unaware of the loan, complained in the constitutional complaint to the general courts that she was formalistic when – assuming that they could not which did not prove or claim its participation in the non-exchange relationship – did not examine whether, given the specific circumstances of the case, the intervener's conduct could not be regarded as an abuse of (bill of exchange) law. The complainant further pointed out that the original alleged loan secured by a bill of exchange amounted to CZK 310,000, while the bill of exchange money amounted to CZK 1,700,632, and that the general courts should have taken into account her allegation of conflict with good morals, resp. to deal with it. According to the complainant, the intervener deliberately allowed the debt secured by the bill to increase to the maximum possible amount.
The Constitutional Court has previously stated that general courts are obliged in their decision-making activities (with regard to the specific circumstances of the case) to look for such interpretive and application bases that prevent abuse of rights due to inappropriate application of bill of exchange institutes to the detriment of the bill of exchange participant – consumer. Therefore, if the complainant alleged in the proceedings that the intervener had abused the „bill of exchange strictness“ and raised specific objections in this connection, which could also be qualified as so-called causal objections, it was the duty of the ordinary courts to deal with them. In this particular case, although it was a contractual relationship between natural persons, the position of the parties in it was in fact different, respectively. unequal. The intervener provided the loan in direct connection with the business activities of Ekonomické stavby sro, in which he himself acted as an executive, when this company was to be the supplier of a family house on the land on the loan of which the loan was (purposefully) provided. there was a repeated use of bills, the intervener performed (apparently) more often. Therefore, it was necessary to examine whether the bill of exchange was not an instrument to ‚cover‘ the intervener's conduct against good morals in the context of an non-exchange relationship.
The regional court and the high court thus violated the right to judicial protection, as the courts did not properly address the complainant's so-called causal objections and the Supreme Court committed the same violation in the appeal proceedings if he did not provide protection to the complainant, although he had the law to do so. defined space.
The text of the judgment of the Constitutional Court file no. mark III. ÚS 1293/16 is available PDF HERE (205 KB, PDF).
Taken from a press release of the Constitutional Court Miroslava Sedláčková, spokesperson for the Constitutional Court.