. "Rozhod\u010D\u00ED dolo\u017Eky ve spot\u0159ebitelsk\u00FDch smlouv\u00E1ch" . . "1"^^ . "RIV/00216208:11220/11:10105587" . . "In the Czech legal practice, the problem arose of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts which confer the competence to decide disputes about contracts of arbitration courts that are not based on law. They are mostly adhesion contracts that consumers enter into without sufficient attention and awareness. In this issue of the intersection of two questions: if it is possible to refer to such arbitration courts if Czech law on arbitration admits such a possibility only to arbitration courts established by law, and on the other hand, the question of the nature of the clauses as unfair terms within the meaning of Directive No. . 1993/13/EC. Judicial practice in resolving such disputes entirely gone abusive nature of the issues that were not parties relied, and to address only the relationship to the law on arbitration. The arbitration clause after an incomplete examination of the NS said to be valid. Also, the doctrine is either abusive nature untouched, or only in relation to the Czech imperfect transposition to the conclusion that this question is not too promising starting point for consumers. Contribution to the described case indicates a low level of compliance with EU law in the CR, because the relatively large SD jurisprudence EU imposes a national court to the abusive nature of the clauses examined ex officio. If the Supreme Court passed this obligation, totally committed flagrant violations of EU law. From the case can be deduced with considerable certainty the emergence of State liability for such breach of EU law to the injured parties. Damages can claim in a national court under the case law arising. However it is clear that in the Czech conditions will go a long time before damage will have greater assurance that its efforts to obtain legal protection to arrive at a satisfactory result."@en . "Z(MSM0021620804)" . "1"^^ . "227705" . "contracts; consumer; clauses; arbitration"@en . . "25"^^ . "V \u010Desk\u00E9 pr\u00E1vn\u00ED praxi se objevil probl\u00E9m rozhod\u010D\u00EDch dolo\u017Eek ve spot\u0159ebitelsk\u00FDch smlouv\u00E1ch, kter\u00E9 p\u0159izn\u00E1vaj\u00ED kompetenci pro rozhodov\u00E1n\u00ED o sporech ze smluv rozhod\u010D\u00EDm soud\u016Fm, je\u017E nejsou zalo\u017Eeny na z\u00E1klad\u011B z\u00E1kona. Jedn\u00E1 se v\u011Bt\u0161inou o adhezn\u00ED smlouvy, kter\u00E9 spot\u0159ebitel\u00E9 uzav\u00EDraj\u00ED bez dostate\u010Dn\u00E9 pozornosti a informovanosti. V t\u00E9to problematice se prot\u00EDnaj\u00ED dv\u011B ot\u00E1zky: je-li mo\u017Eno odkazovat na takov\u00E9to rozhod\u010D\u00ED soudy, jestli\u017Ee \u010Desk\u00FD z\u00E1kon o rozhod\u010D\u00EDm \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED p\u0159izn\u00E1v\u00E1 takovou mo\u017Enost jenom v\u016F\u010Di rozhod\u010D\u00EDm soud\u016Fm zalo\u017Een\u00FDm na z\u00E1klad\u011B z\u00E1kona, a na druh\u00E9 stran\u011B ot\u00E1zka povahy dolo\u017Eek jako zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00EDch klauzul\u00ED ve smyslu sm\u011Brnice \u010D. 1993/13/ES. Soudn\u00ED praxe p\u0159i \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED t\u011Bchto spor\u016F zcela pominula problematiku zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00ED povahy, kter\u00E1 nebyla stranami nam\u00EDt\u00E1na, a \u0159e\u0161ila jenom vztah k z\u00E1konu o rozhod\u010D\u00EDm \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED. Rozhod\u010D\u00ED dolo\u017Eky po tomto ne\u00FApln\u00E9m prozkoum\u00E1n\u00ED prohl\u00E1sil NS za platn\u00E9. Tak\u00E9 doktr\u00EDna se bu\u010F zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00ED povahy v\u016Fbec nedotkla, nebo jenom ve vazb\u011B na nedokonalou \u010Deskou transpozici se z\u00E1v\u011Brem, \u017Ee tato ot\u00E1zka nen\u00ED pro spot\u0159ebitele p\u0159\u00EDli\u0161 nad\u011Bjn\u00FDm v\u00FDchodiskem. P\u0159\u00EDsp\u011Bvek na popsan\u00E9m p\u0159\u00EDpadu ukazuje n\u00EDzkou \u00FArove\u0148 respektov\u00E1n\u00ED unijn\u00EDho pr\u00E1va v \u010CR, proto\u017Ee pom\u011Brn\u011B rozs\u00E1hl\u00E1 judikatura SD EU ukl\u00E1d\u00E1 n\u00E1rodn\u00EDmu soudci, aby zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00ED povahu dolo\u017Eek zkoumal z \u00FA\u0159edn\u00ED povinnosti. Jestli\u017Ee Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED soud pominul tuto svou povinnost, dopustil se zcela z\u0159ejm\u00E9ho poru\u0161en\u00ED pr\u00E1va EU. Z judikatury Soudn\u00EDho dvora lze se zna\u010Dnou jistotou dovodit i vznik odpov\u011Bdnosti st\u00E1tu za takov\u00E9to poru\u0161en\u00ED unijn\u00EDho pr\u00E1va v\u016F\u010Di po\u0161kozen\u00FDm osob\u00E1m. N\u00E1hrady \u0161kody je mo\u017Eno dom\u00E1hat se u n\u00E1rodn\u00EDho soudu za podm\u00EDnek z judikatury vypl\u00FDvaj\u00EDc\u00EDch. Je ov\u0161em z\u0159ejm\u00E9, \u017Ee v \u010Desk\u00FDch podm\u00EDnk\u00E1ch bude trvat je\u0161t\u011B dost dlouho, ne\u017E po\u0161kozen\u00FD bude m\u00EDt v\u011Bt\u0161\u00ED jistotu, \u017Ee jeho \u00FAsil\u00ED domoci se pr\u00E1vn\u00ED ochrany dosp\u011Bje k uspokojiv\u00E9mu v\u00FDsledku."@cs . . "XIX. Karlovarsk\u00E9 pr\u00E1vnick\u00E9 dny : XIX. Karlsbader Juristentage" . "Linde" . "Karlovy Vary" . . . . "The arbitration clauses in consumer contracts"@en . "11220" . . "Rozhod\u010D\u00ED dolo\u017Eky ve spot\u0159ebitelsk\u00FDch smlouv\u00E1ch" . "Rozhod\u010D\u00ED dolo\u017Eky ve spot\u0159ebitelsk\u00FDch smlouv\u00E1ch"@cs . . . . . "Praha" . . "Rozhod\u010D\u00ED dolo\u017Eky ve spot\u0159ebitelsk\u00FDch smlouv\u00E1ch"@cs . . "978-80-87212-77-6" . "2011-06-09+02:00"^^ . . . "The arbitration clauses in consumer contracts"@en . . "Pelik\u00E1nov\u00E1, Irena" . "[9CB423A16FBA]" . "RIV/00216208:11220/11:10105587!RIV12-MSM-11220___" . "V \u010Desk\u00E9 pr\u00E1vn\u00ED praxi se objevil probl\u00E9m rozhod\u010D\u00EDch dolo\u017Eek ve spot\u0159ebitelsk\u00FDch smlouv\u00E1ch, kter\u00E9 p\u0159izn\u00E1vaj\u00ED kompetenci pro rozhodov\u00E1n\u00ED o sporech ze smluv rozhod\u010D\u00EDm soud\u016Fm, je\u017E nejsou zalo\u017Eeny na z\u00E1klad\u011B z\u00E1kona. Jedn\u00E1 se v\u011Bt\u0161inou o adhezn\u00ED smlouvy, kter\u00E9 spot\u0159ebitel\u00E9 uzav\u00EDraj\u00ED bez dostate\u010Dn\u00E9 pozornosti a informovanosti. V t\u00E9to problematice se prot\u00EDnaj\u00ED dv\u011B ot\u00E1zky: je-li mo\u017Eno odkazovat na takov\u00E9to rozhod\u010D\u00ED soudy, jestli\u017Ee \u010Desk\u00FD z\u00E1kon o rozhod\u010D\u00EDm \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED p\u0159izn\u00E1v\u00E1 takovou mo\u017Enost jenom v\u016F\u010Di rozhod\u010D\u00EDm soud\u016Fm zalo\u017Een\u00FDm na z\u00E1klad\u011B z\u00E1kona, a na druh\u00E9 stran\u011B ot\u00E1zka povahy dolo\u017Eek jako zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00EDch klauzul\u00ED ve smyslu sm\u011Brnice \u010D. 1993/13/ES. Soudn\u00ED praxe p\u0159i \u0159e\u0161en\u00ED t\u011Bchto spor\u016F zcela pominula problematiku zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00ED povahy, kter\u00E1 nebyla stranami nam\u00EDt\u00E1na, a \u0159e\u0161ila jenom vztah k z\u00E1konu o rozhod\u010D\u00EDm \u0159\u00EDzen\u00ED. Rozhod\u010D\u00ED dolo\u017Eky po tomto ne\u00FApln\u00E9m prozkoum\u00E1n\u00ED prohl\u00E1sil NS za platn\u00E9. Tak\u00E9 doktr\u00EDna se bu\u010F zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00ED povahy v\u016Fbec nedotkla, nebo jenom ve vazb\u011B na nedokonalou \u010Deskou transpozici se z\u00E1v\u011Brem, \u017Ee tato ot\u00E1zka nen\u00ED pro spot\u0159ebitele p\u0159\u00EDli\u0161 nad\u011Bjn\u00FDm v\u00FDchodiskem. P\u0159\u00EDsp\u011Bvek na popsan\u00E9m p\u0159\u00EDpadu ukazuje n\u00EDzkou \u00FArove\u0148 respektov\u00E1n\u00ED unijn\u00EDho pr\u00E1va v \u010CR, proto\u017Ee pom\u011Brn\u011B rozs\u00E1hl\u00E1 judikatura SD EU ukl\u00E1d\u00E1 n\u00E1rodn\u00EDmu soudci, aby zneu\u017E\u00EDvaj\u00EDc\u00ED povahu dolo\u017Eek zkoumal z \u00FA\u0159edn\u00ED povinnosti. Jestli\u017Ee Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED soud pominul tuto svou povinnost, dopustil se zcela z\u0159ejm\u00E9ho poru\u0161en\u00ED pr\u00E1va EU. Z judikatury Soudn\u00EDho dvora lze se zna\u010Dnou jistotou dovodit i vznik odpov\u011Bdnosti st\u00E1tu za takov\u00E9to poru\u0161en\u00ED unijn\u00EDho pr\u00E1va v\u016F\u010Di po\u0161kozen\u00FDm osob\u00E1m. N\u00E1hrady \u0161kody je mo\u017Eno dom\u00E1hat se u n\u00E1rodn\u00EDho soudu za podm\u00EDnek z judikatury vypl\u00FDvaj\u00EDc\u00EDch. Je ov\u0161em z\u0159ejm\u00E9, \u017Ee v \u010Desk\u00FDch podm\u00EDnk\u00E1ch bude trvat je\u0161t\u011B dost dlouho, ne\u017E po\u0161kozen\u00FD bude m\u00EDt v\u011Bt\u0161\u00ED jistotu, \u017Ee jeho \u00FAsil\u00ED domoci se pr\u00E1vn\u00ED ochrany dosp\u011Bje k uspokojiv\u00E9mu v\u00FDsledku." .