The Directive on the Credit Agreements for Consumers relating to Residential Immovable Property (Directive 2014/17)

A Regulatory Explanation and a Private Law Analysis

Pierre de Gioia-Carabellese

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

With the devastation wrought by the 2008 ‘property market bubble’ still fresh in the mind on one hand, and a spate of recent enthusiasm manifested in the ‘rush to the property ladder’ on the other, the newly enacted Directive 2014/17 seeks to strike a middle ground of reasonableness in the delicate and sensitive matter of the security granted by the buyer of a residential property.Against this background, the present contribution analyses, first and foremost, the norms of a regulatory nature introduced by the new EU piece of legislation and the attempt to shape a new category of consumer. Among these precepts, attention is particularly afforded to the principle, of a public nature, prescribing that the bank’s assessment to grant a mortgage shall be prevailingly based on the ability of the mortgagor to repay the debt, rather than on the expected (but undemonstrative) burgeoning future value of the property.Furthermore, the discussion focuses on the private law principles introduced by the Directive. Among these is the onus lying on the bank to provide adequate information about the terms and conditions of the mortgage. More interestingly, the directive at stake derogates from, and goes beyond, the notion of prohibition of ‘agreement of forfeiture’ existing in some civil law jurisdictions. This novelty, the ancillary legal provisions of art 28 of Directive 2014/17 as well as their impact on the system of civil proceedings and foreclosure existing in each country, provide fertile ground for a legal and comparative analysis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)33-57
Number of pages25
JournalEuropean Business Law Review
Volume29
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

private law
credit
bank
legal provision
foreclosure
reasonableness
civil law
indebtedness
jurisdiction
EU
legislation
art
present
market
ability
Values

Cite this

@article{806641db63e64184aa451c22b11f04cc,
title = "The Directive on the Credit Agreements for Consumers relating to Residential Immovable Property (Directive 2014/17): A Regulatory Explanation and a Private Law Analysis",
abstract = "With the devastation wrought by the 2008 ‘property market bubble’ still fresh in the mind on one hand, and a spate of recent enthusiasm manifested in the ‘rush to the property ladder’ on the other, the newly enacted Directive 2014/17 seeks to strike a middle ground of reasonableness in the delicate and sensitive matter of the security granted by the buyer of a residential property.Against this background, the present contribution analyses, first and foremost, the norms of a regulatory nature introduced by the new EU piece of legislation and the attempt to shape a new category of consumer. Among these precepts, attention is particularly afforded to the principle, of a public nature, prescribing that the bank’s assessment to grant a mortgage shall be prevailingly based on the ability of the mortgagor to repay the debt, rather than on the expected (but undemonstrative) burgeoning future value of the property.Furthermore, the discussion focuses on the private law principles introduced by the Directive. Among these is the onus lying on the bank to provide adequate information about the terms and conditions of the mortgage. More interestingly, the directive at stake derogates from, and goes beyond, the notion of prohibition of ‘agreement of forfeiture’ existing in some civil law jurisdictions. This novelty, the ancillary legal provisions of art 28 of Directive 2014/17 as well as their impact on the system of civil proceedings and foreclosure existing in each country, provide fertile ground for a legal and comparative analysis.",
author = "Gioia-Carabellese, {Pierre de}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "33--57",
journal = "European Business Law Review",
issn = "0959-6941",
publisher = "Kluwer Law International",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Directive on the Credit Agreements for Consumers relating to Residential Immovable Property (Directive 2014/17)

T2 - A Regulatory Explanation and a Private Law Analysis

AU - Gioia-Carabellese, Pierre de

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - With the devastation wrought by the 2008 ‘property market bubble’ still fresh in the mind on one hand, and a spate of recent enthusiasm manifested in the ‘rush to the property ladder’ on the other, the newly enacted Directive 2014/17 seeks to strike a middle ground of reasonableness in the delicate and sensitive matter of the security granted by the buyer of a residential property.Against this background, the present contribution analyses, first and foremost, the norms of a regulatory nature introduced by the new EU piece of legislation and the attempt to shape a new category of consumer. Among these precepts, attention is particularly afforded to the principle, of a public nature, prescribing that the bank’s assessment to grant a mortgage shall be prevailingly based on the ability of the mortgagor to repay the debt, rather than on the expected (but undemonstrative) burgeoning future value of the property.Furthermore, the discussion focuses on the private law principles introduced by the Directive. Among these is the onus lying on the bank to provide adequate information about the terms and conditions of the mortgage. More interestingly, the directive at stake derogates from, and goes beyond, the notion of prohibition of ‘agreement of forfeiture’ existing in some civil law jurisdictions. This novelty, the ancillary legal provisions of art 28 of Directive 2014/17 as well as their impact on the system of civil proceedings and foreclosure existing in each country, provide fertile ground for a legal and comparative analysis.

AB - With the devastation wrought by the 2008 ‘property market bubble’ still fresh in the mind on one hand, and a spate of recent enthusiasm manifested in the ‘rush to the property ladder’ on the other, the newly enacted Directive 2014/17 seeks to strike a middle ground of reasonableness in the delicate and sensitive matter of the security granted by the buyer of a residential property.Against this background, the present contribution analyses, first and foremost, the norms of a regulatory nature introduced by the new EU piece of legislation and the attempt to shape a new category of consumer. Among these precepts, attention is particularly afforded to the principle, of a public nature, prescribing that the bank’s assessment to grant a mortgage shall be prevailingly based on the ability of the mortgagor to repay the debt, rather than on the expected (but undemonstrative) burgeoning future value of the property.Furthermore, the discussion focuses on the private law principles introduced by the Directive. Among these is the onus lying on the bank to provide adequate information about the terms and conditions of the mortgage. More interestingly, the directive at stake derogates from, and goes beyond, the notion of prohibition of ‘agreement of forfeiture’ existing in some civil law jurisdictions. This novelty, the ancillary legal provisions of art 28 of Directive 2014/17 as well as their impact on the system of civil proceedings and foreclosure existing in each country, provide fertile ground for a legal and comparative analysis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042134499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 33

EP - 57

JO - European Business Law Review

JF - European Business Law Review

SN - 0959-6941

IS - 1

ER -