The Bottom Line
- Unenforceable Clauses: A Dutch court has voided a standard clause for collection costs in a B2C contract, demonstrating that even if a customer defaults, unfair terms will not be enforced.
- Proactive Judicial Review: Courts are actively scrutinizing consumer contracts for fairness on their own initiative, as required by EU law. Businesses can no longer rely on consumer inaction to enforce questionable terms.
- Hidden Cost of Non-Compliance: Using unfair terms can lead to additional legal costs. In this case, the business had to pay for extra procedural steps that were necessary only because of its own non-compliant clause.
The Details
This case involved a straightforward claim by a hospital against a patient for an unpaid bill. The patient did not appear in court, which typically results in a default judgment for the claimant. However, the North Holland District Court took a proactive step, offering a critical reminder for all businesses dealing with consumers. Instead of simply rubber-stamping the claim, the judge conducted an ex officio review—an automatic check for fairness—of the hospital’s general terms and conditions, as mandated by European consumer protection directives.
The court identified the clause relating to extrajudicial collection costs (Article 3.11) as potentially unfair. The judge gave the hospital an opportunity to defend the clause, but the claimant chose to defer to the court’s preliminary judgment. Consequently, the court officially nullified the collection costs clause, branding it unfair to the consumer. As a direct result, the hospital’s claim for these fees was denied, even though the underlying debt was valid. This demonstrates that courts will act as a backstop for consumers, regardless of whether the consumer actively defends themselves.
This ruling underscores a significant business risk. While the court found the principal debt and a related interest clause in the same article to be valid, it carved out and struck down the unfair collection fee term. The decision sends a clear message: every clause in a B2C contract must stand on its own merits of fairness. Furthermore, the court ordered the hospital to bear the legal costs associated with the extra submission it had to make regarding the unfair term. This penalty reinforces the principle that businesses are responsible for ensuring their standard contracts are fully compliant with consumer law from the outset, or risk facing both rejected claims and additional costs.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
