ecj,就是 Jean-Claude Van Hove V CNP保证SA,确认保险公司必须确保他们的消费者客户了解他们所采取的保险政策的经济后果。

为实现这一目标,ECJ表示必须起草与保险合同主要主题有关的条款“普通,可理解的语言” to comply with Article 4(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (93/13/EEC) (the ‘Directive’).  The Directive provides that consumers are not bound by unfair clauses that are set out in contracts with sellers/ suppliers. Article 4(2) states that terms associated with the main subject-matter of the contract fall outside the scope of the Directive if they are drafted in 普通,可理解的语言.

The ECJ explained that 普通,可理解的语言 will be found if the language is not only grammatically intelligible to the consumer, but if it also clearly sets out the specific functioning of the insurance arrangements to allow the consumer to evaluate the economic consequences that could derive from the contract. If it is not easy for a consumer to make such an assessment, the national court may consider the possibility of unfairness.

如果有关于术语将被视为“核心”对合同的争议,法院将以更有利的方式解释该一项术语。欧洲委员会不会确定这一点,但会将其留给国家法院,以考虑该一项课程是否是保险合同的重要组成部分。

虽然这一决定对保险业产生影响,但它也将是普遍的利益,商业从业者需要履行案件以满足同一标准。 “消费者合同条例”1999年的不公平术语实施了向英国法律的指令,第6段涉及对不公平术语的评估。该立法设定为2015年消费者权利法(2015年10月1日)所取代,前者由后者第64段所取代;因此,当事人应该知道欧洲委员会裁决,当面临任何立法所带来的索赔。

由于裁决,在起草合同文件的情况下,将增加压力,以确保关键术语很容易理解,并以普通的英语。如果不确定,请记住 - 消费者可能会被赋予任何疑问的好处。