They are not related to the resolution of the case

Roselin67

Athesis and art. of Law no. violates the provisions of art. para. from the Constitution and those of art. of the First Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with reference to art. of the Constitution. Law no. in its entire content does not provide concretely what are the objective criteria that were the basis for determining the categories of consumers who can benefit from the conferred prerogatives creating the possibility for the debtor to take discretionary decisions and violate contractual obligations harming the other party whenever he wants.

Moreover by notifying the creditor he has the possibility Country Email List to unilaterally suspend the execution of the payment until the dispute is settled before the court. The legal texts do not make any difference between debtors in good faith and those in bad faith because no mention is made of the real financial situation of the debtor. . Also the law as a whole seems to aim at dividing the risk of the contract by devaluing the good offered as a guarantee completely ignoring the existence of the remedy of unpredictability.



The positive internal law offers sufficient guarantees personalized to ensure the requirements of necessity and proportionality of the interference so that the rights of consumers are protected and the contractual risks are equitably shared. . The court considers that the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. para. and art. of Law no. is inadmissible as  with which it was assigned. The purpose of this case is to resolve the appeal filed by the creditor pursuant to art. of Law no. while the provisions of art. para. and art. of Law no. are relevant in the second stage of the application of the payment procedure which is subsequent.