In its judgment delivered on 10 April 2014, the Third Chamber of the Constitutional Court (Justice Jan Filip served as the Judge Rapporteur) emphasized that it decided on constitutionality of the alleged interference with fundamental rights of the appellant, not on the “policy” of bank fees. After all, the constitutional appeal was not joined by the request to review constitutionality of respective statutes regulating this area of consumer law. The Constitutional Court thus assessed the de minimis nature of the merits of the dispute, the request to unify the case-law of ordinary courts by the Constitutional Court in cases where this cannot be carried out by the highest court in the system of ordinary courts, the problem of constitutional protection of consumers as so-called weaker parties and the issue of costs of proceedings. The Constitutional Court found no violation of the appellant’s constitutionally guaranteed rights in these areas. It observed that the appellant had signed the contract of her own free will, knowing the conditions stipulated and that the bank’s policy had not in any way violated her rights as a client. The court could only intervene if one party in a contract were to unilaterally determine contractual conditions which the other party would be obliged to accept, which was not the case in question.