A (ir) responsabilidade das instituições de crédito na concessão de crédito a pessoa em situação económica difícil

Abstract

A presente dissertação tem como ponto de partida o Ac. do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, de 31.10.2012. Segundo a decisão proferida por aquele tribunal, sempre que a situação de insolvência tenha sido criada ou agravada pelo devedor em consequência da contracção de múltiplos empréstimos, deve aquela ser considerada culposa. No entanto, esta decisão deixa de fora alguns pontos que, em nosso entender, merecem uma redobrada atenção.Em primeiro lugar, é indiscutível o papel desempenhado pelo crédito no que respeita à melhoria das condições de vida e realização pessoal dos consumidores, permitindo o acesso a determinados bens e serviços essenciais. Contudo, também é inegável que o crédito acarreta consigo o risco de sobreendividamento dos consumidores. Em segundo lugar, sendo a insolvência qualificada como culposa, decorre do art. 238º, nº 1, al. e) do CIRE que o devedor fica impossibilitado de recorrer ao mecanismo de exoneração do passivo restante como meio de reequilibrar a sua situação patrimonial, através da exoneração dos créditos que não forem integralmente pagos no processo de insolvência, ou nos cinco anos subsequentes ao encerramento deste.Por fim, a decisão proferida pelo tribunal deixou de fora o papel decisivo das instituições que concedem crédito, e os deveres a que estão adstritas, afastando a sua responsabilidade na concessão abusiva do mesmo.Interligando as três problemáticas em questão será nossa missão concluir por uma eventual responsabilidade, ou não, das instituições de crédito na concessão de crédito a pessoa em situação económica difícil.

This dissertation has as its starting point the judgment of Lisbon Court of Appeal of 31st October 2012. According to the sentence by that court, whenever the insolvency situation has been created or exacerbated by the debtor as a result of the contraction of multiple loans that should be considered wrongful. However, this decision leaves out some points that deserve some particular attention as we believe.First of all, is unquestionable the role played by credit as regards the improvement of living and personal fulfillment of consumers, allowing the access to certain goods and services. Yet, it’s also undeniable that credit carries with it the risk of over-indebtedness of consumers.Secondly, follows from the article 238, no. 1, paragraph e) of CIRE, if the insolvency situation is classified as culpable, the debtor is unable to appeal the discharge mechanism, as a way to rebalance his asset condition, removing the credits which aren’t fully paid in insolvency proceedings, or in five years after proceedings closure. Finally, the decision of the court has left out the crucial role played by financial institutions and its duties to which they are subject, moving away their responsibility in granting credit.By interconnecting the three problematic, our mission will be conclude by the responsibility, or not, of credit institutions in granting credit to a person in difficult situation.This dissertation has as its starting point the judgment of Lisbon Court of Appeal of 31st October 2012. According to the sentence by that court, whenever the insolvency situation has been created or exacerbated by the debtor as a result of the contraction of multiple loans that should be considered wrongful. However, this decision leaves out some points that deserve some particular attention as we believe.First of all, is unquestionable the role played by credit as regards the improvement of living and personal fulfillment of consumers, allowing the access to certain goods and services. Yet, it’s also undeniable that credit carries with it the risk of over-indebtedness of consumers.Secondly, follows from the article 238, no. 1, paragraph e) of CIRE, if the insolvency situation is classified as culpable, the debtor is unable to appeal the discharge mechanism, as a way to rebalance his asset condition, removing the credits which aren’t fully paid in insolvency proceedings, or in five years after proceedings closure. Finally, the decision of the court has left out the crucial role played by financial institutions and its duties to which they are subject, moving away their responsibility in granting credit.By interconnecting the three problematic, our mission will be conclude by the responsibility, or not, of credit institutions in granting credit to a person in difficult situation.This dissertation has as its starting point the judgment of Lisbon Court of Appeal of 31st October 2012. According to the sentence by that court, whenever the insolvency situation has been created or exacerbated by the debtor as a result of the contraction of multiple loans that should be considered wrongful. However, this decision leaves out some points that deserve some particular attention as we believe.First of all, is unquestionable the role played by credit as regards the improvement of living and personal fulfillment of consumers, allowing the access to certain goods and services. Yet, it’s also undeniable that credit carries with it the risk of over-indebtedness of consumers.Secondly, follows from the article 238, no. 1, paragraph e) of CIRE, if the insolvency situation is classified as culpable, the debtor is unable to appeal the discharge mechanism, as a way to rebalance his asset condition, removing the credits which aren’t fully paid in insolvency proceedings, or in five years after proceedings closure. Finally, the decision of the court has left out the crucial role played by financial institutions and its duties to which they are subject, moving away their responsibility in granting credit.By interconnecting the three problematic, our mission will be conclude by the responsibility, or not, of credit institutions in granting credit to a person in difficult situation.