The author critiques the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia’s handling
of the revision decision, specifically in judgment and decision no. II Ips
54/2003 of 20 September 2023, which concerns a series of long-standing disputes
over foreign exchange credit agreements in Swiss francs. The criticism
centres on the court’s failure to establish a mechanism for harmonising jurisprudence.
Instead, it engages in continuous redefinitions of procedural and
material principles, standards, and the use of vague and unfounded terms. The
court should have provided clear and understandable answers to fundamental
questions in practice: whether, to what extent, and within which timeframe
the legal rules, principles, and standards set out in the directives and case law
of the Court of Justice of the EU are applied in Slovenian court disputes; and
which questions of contractual formulary law or general terms and conditions
of business must be addressed in court proceedings to determine whether a
bank has met its explanatory duty, etc. almost importantly, the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Slovenia must acknowledge that all credit agreements were
concluded in compliance with the then-valid Consumer Credit Act (ZPotK).
However, this court now opt not to apply this act, favouring instead their new
interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act (ZVPot), which did not exist at
the time the contracts were concluded. This suggests a retroactive application
of the law—a conclusion of contracts in full compliance with the ZPotK, which
is now effectively annulled retroactively by the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Slovenia. Notably, such retroactivity is also prohibited under EU law.
Key words: credit, Swiss francs, bank, explanatory duty, Supreme Court of the
Republic of Slovenia, retroactivity.