Povzetek: Prispevek obravnava nekatere vidike pojasnilne dolžnosti, ki zavezuje banko v predpogodbeni fazi pri sklepanju bančnih poslov. Predstavljena sta izvor in vloga pojasnilne dolžnosti banke kot pravnega instituta, namenjenega zmanjševanju informacijske asimetrije in zagotavljanju dejanske enakopravnosti pogodbenih strank. Avtor obravnava pravni položaj kršitve pojasnilne dolžnosti in možnosti za pravno varstvo prizadete stranke v okviru obligacijskega prava, s poudarkom na odškodninski odgovornosti banke. Pri tem razrešuje dilemo, ali je treba izhajati iz pravil poslovne ali neposlovne odškodninske odgovornosti, ter kritično primerja pojasnilno dolžnost banke s položajem pojasnilne dolžnosti v medicini. Predstavljena sta obseg pravno relevantne škode in način presoje vzročne zveze, ki mora biti podana med kršitvijo pojasnilne dolžnosti in nastalo škodo stranki. Odškodninski zahtevek zastara s potekom časa, pri čemer se zaradi specifične narave pojasnilne dolžnosti poraja vprašanje dolžine roka za zastaranje odškodninske terjatve in trenutka začetka teka zastaranja. Ključne besede: pojasnilna dolžnost, banka, kršitev pojasnilne dolžnosti, predpogodbena odgovornost, odškodninska odgovornost, zastaranje Abstract: The article encompasses certain aspects of the information duty, obligatory for a bank at a pre-contractual stage of the conclusion of banking transactions. The origin and role of the information duty of a bank, as a legal institute with the purpose to reduce information asymmetries and ensure effective equality of the contractual parties, are presented. The author discusses the legal status of the breach of information duty and possibilities for the legal protection of the affected party under the law of obligations, with an emphasis on the bank's liability for damages. In this respect, the author resolves the dilemma of application of contractual liability for damages or tort liability and critically compares the information duty of a bank to the status of information duty in medicine. The scope of legally relevant damage and the method of assessment of the causal relationship between the breach of information duty and the damage caused to the customer are presented. The claim for damages falls under the statute of limitation, whereas the specific nature of information duty raises the issue of the period of statute of limitation for the damage claim and the issue of the moment when the respective period of statute of limitation starts. Key words: information duty, bank, breach of information duty, pre-contractual liability, claim for damages, statute of limitation