Hylätään selvästi perusteettomana – Tuomioistuimen tutkimisvallasta erityisesti kuluttaja-asioissa
Avainsanat:
prosessioikeus, kuluttajansuoja, EU-oikeus, pakottava säännös, yksipuolinen tuomioAbstrakti
Dismissed as manifestly unfounded: Ex officio examination in summary proceedings
The article analyses the right and duty of a court to examine, of its own motion (ex officio), facts and grounds in a typical civil suit. The issue manifests in particular in summary proceedings on debt recovery, where failure to respond or to appropriately contest the action results in a judgment by default. However, in so far as the action is manifestly unfounded, the action is dismissed by judgment on the merits.
The article studies binding civil law rules as to when the pertinent facts should be examined and applied by the court despite the passivity of the other party. Traditionally the court has assumed a passive role, not going beyond the ambit of the dispute as defined by the parties. The domestic exception has been the ”manifestly unfounded” criterion. In contrast, the Court of Justice of the European Union has introduced procedural requirements where certain provisions of consumer law within the scope of EU law are concerned. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Finland has held that the threshold of ex officio activity varies, so that domestic provisions require and enable a lesser degree of examination compared to those in the scope of EU consumer law. Therefore the court must identify early on when and how EU law might apply. This will be a challenge particularly in uncontested summary proceedings.
