According to the article 332 § 2 AK, in which Article 334 § 2 AK (both provisions were amended by Article 2 § 1 n. 3043/2002), the lack of individual negotiation constitutes not only necessary, and sufficient condition for invalidity exculpatory clauses even for slight negligence. Given the importance of exculpatory clauses in the transaction life, the in possible precise determination of the scope of those measures is of great theoretical and practical importance.

The present study attempted such a determination based on the one hand the operation of exculpatory clauses under the contractual relationship as benefit sharing tools and risk of the contract and also pursued by the provision of objective nullity. On the latter investigated, with reference to the characteristic absence individually negotiated, training that contract terms and conditions, the legislative reason for the lack of individual negotiation leads to nullity of exculpatory clauses. The conclusion is that the exculpatory clauses contained in terms and conditions shall not become invalid because imposed by negotiating stronger negotiating the weaker party, but because they create a significant imbalance in the mutual negotiation costs. This imbalance leads in turn to an imbalance in incentives each side attempt favorable configuration of the conventional content. The survey findings are utilized to determine the limits of the abovementioned imbalance. Such limits are primarily identified above in relation to contracts with very important subject.

Subsequently, sought other cases individually negotiated lack the space between both contracts drawn up with terms and conditions and also to contracts to shape practically completely from both sides. In the case investigated the criteria under which contractual terms are not terms and conditions must be assimilated, with regard to in Article 332 § 2 AK nullity, with terms and conditions.

Based on the extensive teleological interpretation of "individually negotiated" preceding analysis proposed in Article 332 § 2 AK, so as to include all cases in which there is some sort of standardization of the contractual terms. Further, attempts praeter legem teleological contraction Article 332 § 2 AK as not to apply to contracts with obviously very important (particularly financial) object. Based on those findings supported the teleological contraction provisions as Articles 5 §§ 6 and 8, 6 § 12 and 8 § 6 n. 2251/1994, which prohibit absolutely exculpatory clauses even for slight negligence: Despite the wording of those provisions should be stated that the anticipated void does not occupy waivers for slight negligence agreed upon individual negotiation.

For the interpretation or contraction of the test devices is critical, however, and the constitutional dimension. Because with regard to exculpatory clauses the constitutionally protected freedom of contract has undergone significant legislative shrinkage, which often goes to the core of the right.

To download the article as published in the legal journal Applications of Civil Law (EFAD) click here.