We are a securities trader operating in Slovakia under the Single European Passport. We aim to standardise our complaint handling policy to be consistent across all our branches operating within the European Union. Does the requirement that a customer’s complaint against the conduct of a securities trader must be resolved within 30 days of receipt apply in Slovakia as well? Is it possible to extend this complaint handling period? If so, in what cases and to what extent? Do we need the customer’s consent to extend the complaint handling period? And can we possibly obtain such consent in advance in our general terms and conditions?
Slovak Act No. 566/2001 Coll. on Securities and Investment Services does not regulate the process for handling customer complaints or set the specific period for handling customer complaints. This is interesting because the legislation regulating other financial institutions, such as banks, collective investment fund managers and consumer credit providers, includes detailed provisions on complaints, including the period for resolving them. The obligation of a securities trader to handle complaints is regulated by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565, supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms. However, even the delegated regulation does not directly stipulate any complaint handling period. Article 26(4) merely states that “When handling a complaint, investment firms shall communicate with clients or potential clients clearly, in plain language that is easy to understand and shall reply to the complaint without undue delay”. Therefore, we could say that there is no obligation for securities traders in Slovakia to handle complaints within 30 days.
However, this is not entirely true, because the thirty-day period for handling complaints against the conduct of securities traders does apply, but only in relation to customers who have consumer status. This is because Act No. 108/2024 Coll. on consumer protection establishes the basic obligation of any entity providing services or selling goods to consumers to provide the consumer with “a written acknowledgment of the complaint regarding a defect in the service and the period within which the defect will be remedied, which must not exceed 30 days from the date of the complaint, without undue delay after the defect is notified by the consumer.” In other words, the 30-day period for resolving complaints about services provided by securities traders also applies in Slovakia (in relation to consumers). However, for customers other than consumers, the requirement is that the complaint must be resolved without undue delay. The exact period will depend on the specific circumstances of each case. For simple matters, this should be less than 30 days. In terms of practicality, we believe that if you set a 30-day period as the standard time frame for handling customer complaints in your internal processes (regardless of whether the customer is a consumer or not), it is acceptable.
As for the possibility of extending the period for handling a complaint against the conduct of a securities trader, Securities Act or the Consumer Protection Act does not specifically stipulate any such option. As mentioned above, consumer complaints must be handled within 30 days, and for customers other than consumers, complaints must be handled without undue delay. However, in our opinion, this is too strict. We believe that in justified cases, such as a complex transaction involving multiple parties or when additional information is needed to resolve the matter, an extension of the period should be permissible. The extent to which an extension is permissible could be analogously derived from regulations in other laws governing the activities of financial institutions. For example, the Consumer Credit Act explicitly states that in complex cases, a customer complaint may be resolved no later than within three months of the date the complaint.
However, we believe that in the case of any extension of the complaint handling period, the customer must be informed, clearly and specifically, as to why their complaint could not be resolved within the 30-day period, why the period is being extended, what the new deadline is within which the complaint will be resolved, and, if applicable, what additional information is needed from them for the complaint to be resolved. Ideally, you should get the customer’s consent to extend the period. In Slovakia, however, such a practice is not common, and securities traders tend to extend the complaint handling periods even without the customer’s consent. This does not preclude a dissatisfied customer, whose complaint handling period has been extended without their consent, from turning to a regulator or the courts. If you cause damage by unreasonably extending the period, their success cannot be ruled out.
In this respect, remember that, according to Section 69(4) of Act No. 566/2001 Coll. on Securities and Investment Services, a securities trader is obliged to ensure the availability of at least one mechanism for the out-of-court settlement of customer complaints and disputes. A list of entities providing alternative dispute resolution can be found on the Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic website here: https://www.mhsr.sk/obchod/ochrana-spotrebitela/alternativne-riesenie-spotrebitelskych-sporov-1/zoznam-subjektov-alternativneho-riesenia-spotrebitelskych-sporov-1
We do not recommend obtaining consent for an extension of the period for handling complaints in advance in the general terms and conditions. In our opinion, such consent may be contrary to the principle derived from the Slovak Civil Code, according to which rights that may arise in the future cannot be waived in advance. Moreover, such advance consent in the general terms and conditions might lead your employees to extend the complaint handling periods routinely, rather than just in exceptional cases, and it may also tempt them not to communicate with the client at all when extending the period or to explain the reasons for such extension. We believe this would not be a good practice.
