Powaga rzeczy osądzonej i prawomocność rozszerzona a kontrola wzorców umownych

Abstract

Issues concerning illegal contractual provisions, as well as the extent of the effects of a judicial decision that recognizes the provision of standard contracts illegal, causes great controversy, both theoretical and practical. This is important because this question concerns the constitutional principle of protection of consumers. The primary objective of the law concerning of illegal provisions is healing of legal relations arising from irregularities in the contracting process, related to the contractual advantage one of the parties. Due to the increasingly common practice used by entrepreneurs in standard contracts with consumers, it is necessary to their judicial review. It aims to eliminate from standard contracts such provisions that grossly violate the interests of consumers, putting them in a much worse position in relation to a person who uses such a standard contract. But the question is whether, in circumstances where the specific contractual provision will be criminalized and the court will prohibit a particular entrepreneur using it in dealings with consumers, such a decision also involves other entrepreneurs. In other words, if though they are not party to the trial, they are obliged to adhere to the judgment. We are dealing here with the opposition of the rule of law to the court for every person, including entrepreneurs, to the principle of consumer protection, which is really executed. The essence of the problem boils down to the concept of extended validity, so that the art. 47943 Civil Procedure Code, which provides for such an effect applies only to the entrepreneur who was a party (defendant) in trial for the recognition provisions of standard contracts illegal, whether it should be assumed broad interpretation, so that inscribing of a clause in the register of the President of the Trading Standard Office has certain effects also in relation to other entrepreneurs who use patterns agreement. The problem takes on added significance if we consider the possibility of punishment in antitrust proceedings businesses using abusive clauses that have been inscribed into the register.