The Greek Supreme Court on the Enforceability of a Choice-of-Court Clause in a Consumer Contract

The Supreme Court of Greece (Areios Pagos) ruled on 22 March 2023 on the validity of a choice of forum agreement concluded between a bank and its clients (Areios Pagos, ruling No. 441/2023).

The key issue in the dispute was whether the bank’s clients ought to be characterised as ‘consumers’ for the purposes of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

First Instance Proceedings

Four natural persons, all domiciled in Thessaloniki, brought proceedings in Thessaloniki against a Cypriot bank, seeking compensation for damages suffered as a result of an investment made through the bank. According to the bank, it was a rather secure investment proposal.  The claimant’s expression of interest had been filed with the Thessaloniki branch of the Cypriot bank.

The bank challenged the jurisdiction of the seised court. It relied for this on a clause conferring jurisdiction on Cypriot courts, featured in documents which the bank and its clients had exchanged in preparation of the investment.

Strangely enough, the claimants did not submit a reply to the challenge, and simply failed to produce any supplementary pleadings. As a result, the court of first instance of Thessaloniki upheld the challenge and declined jurisdiction.

Appeal Proceedings

The four clients lodged an appeal against the judgement with the Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki. They claimed that they concluded the contracts as consumers, and that the terms and conditions relied upon by the bank, including the choice-of-court clause, were abusive.

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that, at first instance, the clients had failed to take a stance on the bank’s plea of lack of jurisdiction, and had failed to challenge the validity of the bank’s terms and conditions based either on the Greek legislation on consumer protection, or on Article 15 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The Court of Appeal stressed that, according to Greek procedural law, a failure to raise the above issues at first instance entails that a later challenge is foreclosed.

Supreme Court Proceedings

The Supreme Court reversed the judgement. It began by observing that the clients ought in fact to be characterized as consumers. It then held that the failure to examine ex officio the abusive nature of the choice of forum clause was not a sufficient ground to quash the judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the alleged unfairness of a bank’s terms and conditions is not an issue that a first instance court is required, or permitted, to raise by its own motion. The clients only raised the point in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, which they are barred to do pursuant to Article 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

That said, the Areios Pagos held that the Court of Appeal had erred in relying on the (uncontested) plea made by the bank that Greek courts lacked jurisdiction, instead of assessing whether an agreement conferring jurisdiction on Cypriot courts had in fact been entered int between the parties. The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts contented themselves to infer the existence of such an agreement from the fact that the clients failed to reply to the bank’s assertion (an implicit confession within the meaning of Article 261(2) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, even though no express reference to that provision had been made by the bank).

Incidentally, the Supreme Court denied the four clients’ request to submit a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. It did so on the grounds that the unfairness of a contractual term cab only be assessed against the circumstances existing at the time of the conclusion of the contract and in light of the other clauses of the contract. It  is for the consumer to provide evidence of such circumstances, and he must do so in the manner prescribed by the applicable procedural rules.

Remarks

The Supreme Court’s assertion whereby the unfairness of a term is not something a court may assess of its own motion, where the consumer failed to raise the issue of unfairness and to provide evidence of the circumstance in which the contract was concluded, demonstrates the need for enhanced dissemination of the case law of the Court of Justice among domestic judicial authorities.

In fact, the Areios Pagos did not mention, let alone discuss, a single ruling of the Court of Justice relating to the seised court’s power to intervene by its own motion for the sake of protecting the rights of consumers. The Court of Justice has already addressed issues in this connection and is witnessing a number of new preliminary references concerning the topic. Especially in regards to ex officio control on second instance, one could refer to the the cases Eva Martín Martín v EDP Editores SL , Erika Jőrös v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt., and Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse and Katarina de Man Garabito v Jahani BV.

Finally, some thoughts on the claimants’ alleged tacit approval of the choice of forum clause relied upon by the bank. How could someone assert that a claimant who chose to file an action before a certain court, and has already pleaded on the merits of the case, is later tacitly accepting the lack of that same court’s jurisdiction? One might speculate that the lawyers for the claimants simply forgot to file their brief to contest the plea of the bank: a failure that eventually decided the fate of the claim. This is one reason why courts should be permitted some activism, overcoming the inflexible procedural autonomy that Member States enjoy.

Still, it takes two to tango. By dismissing the request of the claimants for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice, the Greek Supreme Court shows its reluctance to cooperate and contribute to the consolidation of European Procedural Law.