Balancing the Rights of Consumers and Service Providers in Electronic Retail Lending in Estonia
Kuupäev
2011-09-27
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Käesoleva uurimuse eesmärgiks on otsida kinnitust väidetele, et elektrooniliste laenudega seotud ettemaksukaartide pakkumisel säilib tarbijakaitse tase; et elektrooniliste tarbijalaenude reguleerimisel Eestis on tarbijakaitse ja ettevõtlusvabaduse tasakaalustamise peamisteks kitsaskohtadeks klientide tuvastamise nõuded ja krediidi kulukuse määrale ülempiiri seadmine; ja et krediidi kulukuse määra piiramine riivab ülemääraselt teenusepakkujate põhiseadusega kaitstud ettevõtlusvabadusõigust.
Laenuga kombineeritud ettemaksukaarti peaks õiguslikult käsitlema kui e-raha. Elektrooniliste laenude muutmine veelgi innovaatilisemaks nende kombineerimise kaudu ettemaksukaartidega kätkeb endas täiendavaid riske, kuid kuna sellega kaasnevad ka täiendavad avalik-õiguslikud piirangud kaardi väljastajatele kui reguleeritud ettevõtjatele, siis tarbijakaitse tase ei halvene.
Kliendi isiku tuvastamise nõuete osas vaadati kohustust tuvastada esmakordselt ärisuhte loomisel kliendi isik viibides kliendiga samas kohas algselt kui ebamõistlikku takistust teenuste pakkumise vabadusele: see nõue kehtestati rahapesu ja terrorismi rahastamise tõkestamise eesmärgil, samas kui väikesemahulised tarbijalaenud ei ole rahapesu- või terrorismi rahastamise riskiga tehingud. Jätkuanalüüs näitas aga, et vajadus vältida anonüümsust ja nende ohtlike kuritegude riski ning kaitsta kaasnevat suurt avalikku huvi õigustab äritegevuse iseloomust sõltumatult isikute õiguste piiramist. Seega on vahetu isikutuvastamise nõue proportsionaalne.
Elektrooniliste tarbijalaenude valdkonnas kohaldatavatest olulisematest tarbijakaitsemeetmetest on krediidi kulukuse määra piiramine peamiseks kitsaskohaks, sest sisaldab tõendamiskoormuse ümberpööramist: kui laenuandja pakub laenu kõrgema krediidi kulukuse määraga kui etteantud ülempiir ja laenusaaja lepingu vaidlustab, siis peab laenuandja tõendama, et leping ei ole sõlmitud vastuolus heade kommetega ega seetõttu tühine. Üheks lähtekohaks laenuandja tõendamiskoormuse ulatuse määratlemisel võiks olla tuginemine mõistlikkuse ja tõhususe põhimõtetele. Vastavalt võiks laenuandjalt oodata, et ta tuvastaks hoolikalt laenusaaja profiili, selgitaks välja tema arusaamise ja tahte tehingu tegemiseks ning veenduks tema maksevõimes.
Teenusepakkujale seatud ulatuslik, aga selgelt määratlemata tõendamiskoormus on tekitanud arutelu krediidi kulukuse piirangu võimalikust vastuolust põhiseadusega. Piirang riivab ebaproportsionaalselt teenusepakkujate põhiseadusega kaitstud ettevõtlusvabadusõigust. Esiteks, piiratakse sellega teenusepakkujate sissetulekut, vähendades seeläbi ettevõtlusvabadusõiguse majanduslikult mõistliku teostamise võimalust. Teiseks võib ettevõtlusvabadusõiguse teostamise piiramine mõjutada SMS-laenude parameetreid, vähendades teenuse tarbijasõbralikkust ja seeläbi kaudselt piirata tarbijate lepinguvabadust. Viimaseks, vastutustundliku laenuandmise põhimõtte kõrval peaks elektrooniliste tarbijalaenude keskseteks põhimõteteks olema ka vastutustundlik laenuvõtmine ja teadlikud tarbijaotsused, mis võimaldavad informeeritud tarbijatel kanda täit vastutust oma otsuste eest. Krediidi kulukuse piiramise asemel võiks pidada kohasemaks kõrgeid tarbijate teavitamise, olulise info avalikustamise ning vastutustundliku turundamise nõudeid, mis samas loovad eelduse vastutustundliku laenuvõtmise realiseerumiseks.
The research contained in this dissertation aims at proving that consumer protection is maintained in the provision of loan-linked prepaid card services; that the requirements for client identification and limiting the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC) are the major bottlenecks in balancing the protection of consumers and entrepreneurship freedom in the regulation of electronic retail lending in Estonia; and that the APRC limit disproportionately restricts the constitutional rights of service providers. Loan-linked prepaid cards should be treated as e-money. The provision of electronic retail lending services in combination with prepaid cards does not deteriorate the level of consumer protection because of public law restrictions applicable to the card issuers as supervised regulated entities. When customer identification in electronic retail lending is regarded, the requirement of face to face identification of first-time customers was initially considered as an unreasonable obstacle to the provision of electronic lending services: these rules aim at preventing money laundering and terrorist financing while small-scale retail loans contain no potential for such crimes. However, the follow-up analysis showed that the need for preventing anonymity and the risk of such dangerous crimes together with protecting great public interest would justify limiting the rights of persons regardless the nature of their business and therefore such identification rules are proportionate. The APRC limit is a major bottleneck among major consumer protection measures because it assumes the reverse burden of proof: in case the APRC of a loan agreement exceeds the legal limit and a borrower argues that the agreement is contrary to good morals, a lender is obliged to prove that it is not. The scope of proof is wide and undefined. One of the starting points for identifying the scope of the lender’s burden of proof is basing it on the principles of reasonableness and effectiveness. Respectively, the lender should properly identify the borrower’s profile, repayment ability and ensure the understanding and willingness of the borrower with regard to the agreement. The undefined wide scope of the obligation of proof facilitates a discussion of potential constitutional non-compliance of the APRC limit. The limit disproportionately restricts the fundamental right of entrepreneurship freedom of service providers. First, the APRC limit sets constraints to the income level of service providers, thereby decreasing economically reasonable exercise of entrepreneurship freedom. Secondly, through limiting the exercise of entrepreneurship freedom the APRC limit might influence the parameters of SMS lending, decreasing consumer-friendliness of the service and thereby indirectly restricting the contractual freedom of consumers. Finally, in parallel to responsible lending, responsible borrowing and well-informed consumer decisions should be the core of electronic retail lending, enabling the sufficiently informed consumers to bear full responsibility for their decisions. Instead of limiting the cost of credit, high information, disclosure and prudent marketing requirements should be considered more appropriate.
The research contained in this dissertation aims at proving that consumer protection is maintained in the provision of loan-linked prepaid card services; that the requirements for client identification and limiting the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC) are the major bottlenecks in balancing the protection of consumers and entrepreneurship freedom in the regulation of electronic retail lending in Estonia; and that the APRC limit disproportionately restricts the constitutional rights of service providers. Loan-linked prepaid cards should be treated as e-money. The provision of electronic retail lending services in combination with prepaid cards does not deteriorate the level of consumer protection because of public law restrictions applicable to the card issuers as supervised regulated entities. When customer identification in electronic retail lending is regarded, the requirement of face to face identification of first-time customers was initially considered as an unreasonable obstacle to the provision of electronic lending services: these rules aim at preventing money laundering and terrorist financing while small-scale retail loans contain no potential for such crimes. However, the follow-up analysis showed that the need for preventing anonymity and the risk of such dangerous crimes together with protecting great public interest would justify limiting the rights of persons regardless the nature of their business and therefore such identification rules are proportionate. The APRC limit is a major bottleneck among major consumer protection measures because it assumes the reverse burden of proof: in case the APRC of a loan agreement exceeds the legal limit and a borrower argues that the agreement is contrary to good morals, a lender is obliged to prove that it is not. The scope of proof is wide and undefined. One of the starting points for identifying the scope of the lender’s burden of proof is basing it on the principles of reasonableness and effectiveness. Respectively, the lender should properly identify the borrower’s profile, repayment ability and ensure the understanding and willingness of the borrower with regard to the agreement. The undefined wide scope of the obligation of proof facilitates a discussion of potential constitutional non-compliance of the APRC limit. The limit disproportionately restricts the fundamental right of entrepreneurship freedom of service providers. First, the APRC limit sets constraints to the income level of service providers, thereby decreasing economically reasonable exercise of entrepreneurship freedom. Secondly, through limiting the exercise of entrepreneurship freedom the APRC limit might influence the parameters of SMS lending, decreasing consumer-friendliness of the service and thereby indirectly restricting the contractual freedom of consumers. Finally, in parallel to responsible lending, responsible borrowing and well-informed consumer decisions should be the core of electronic retail lending, enabling the sufficiently informed consumers to bear full responsibility for their decisions. Instead of limiting the cost of credit, high information, disclosure and prudent marketing requirements should be considered more appropriate.
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone.
Märksõnad
tarbijakaitse, ettevõtlus, Eesti, laenud, e-raha, tarbijakrediit, põhiõigused, piirangud, consumer protection, entepreneurship, Estonia, lending, e-money, consumer credit, constitutional rights, restrictions