English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper is a critical presentation of the CJEU case-law on UCTD, with particular reference to the non-filling of the contractual gap resulting from the unfairness test by applying ‘dispositive’ law or supplementary interpretation. The result contradicts the principles and methods of national civil law: not only does the balance in the contract suffer under the position the CJEU has chosen, as it creates alternated forms of balance of interests rather than the identical ones sought by the parties, but moreover, the increasing number of different cases imposes an ambiguous approach on the CJEU, since European judges have to ask on a case-by-case basis what the best interest of the consumer is. By adopting such a functional approach in favour of the substantive justice of the contract, the ECJ decided with questionable results with regard to national civil law, while methodological legal questions as to whether the contract should stand as it is, following the unfairness test, or whether a supplementation of the contract should take place are still open. It is therefore of critical importance to achieve an optimal combination between a fair balance of the contract and effective consumer protection. 423

The Court and the Sleeping Beauty 2.0: Filling the Contractual Gap, or Making Valid Consumer Contracts to the Detriment of the Non-consumer?