Korak napred, četiri koraka nazad - Vrhovni kasacioni sud još jednom o valutnoj klauzuli

Abstract

Cilj rada je sveobuhvatna analiza presude Vrhovnog kasacionog suda (VKS) u predmetu Prev. 60/2016 od 27. aprila 2017. godine, o ugovoru o kreditu sa valutnom klauzulom. Korak napred je jasan stav VKS da je valutna klauzula zasnovana na zakonu, pa je stoga njeno ugovaranje bezuslovno dopušteno. Prvi korak nazad je to što je VKS, odbacivši nalaze nižestepenih sudova da je promena kursa uobičajena pojava na deviznom tržištu, propustio da ponudi standard kojim bi se ocenjivao karakter promene kursa. Drugi korak nazad je neodgovarajuća primena zakonskog rešenja da se u slučaju valutne klauzule ugovorne obaveze uvek iskazuju u valuti te klauzule. Treći korak nazad je primena zakona o zaštiti potrošača na slučaj u kome je dužnik pravno lice, a sredstva je pozajmio za finansiranje svoje osnovne delatnosti. Četvrti korak nazad je zahtev za utvrđivanje porekla, strukture i uslova pribavljanja sredstava koja su plasirana ugovorom o kreditu. Takav zahtev nama uporište u zakonu, a pitanja koja sadrži uputstvo nižestepenim sudovima su nejasna, ponekad trivijalna, a ponekad besmislena. Štaviše, VKS se nije opredelio o tome koje su pravne posledice odgovora na ta pitanja. Razmotrena presuda dalje umanjuje pravnu sigurnost u oblasti finansijskog posredovanja.

The aim of the paper is comprehensive analyse of the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) case Prev 60/2016 of 27th April 2017. A step forward is a clear position of the SCC that foreign currency clause is based on law, hence is unconditionally allowed in loan contracts. The first step back is that the SCC by rejecting findings of the lower-ranked courts that foreign exchange rate fluctuation is a common phenomenon of the foreign exchange market, failed to provide a standard for evaluation of that fluctuation. The second step back is inappropriate application of the legislative provision that the obligations of the contractual parties are always expressed on the currency selected for the foreign currency clause. The third step back is the application of consumer protection legislation in the case of the corporate debtor who borrowed capital for his main commercial activity. The fourth step back is the request for information of the origin, structure and terms of acquiring liabilities that is used for bank's assets by loan contacts. The request is not founded in law, the questions in the guidelines to the lower-ranked courts are not clear, some of them are trivial and some senseless. Furthermore, the SCC did not specify what are the legal consequences of the answers to these questions. The analysed decision further undermines legal certainty the financial intermediation sector.