Hungary / Szeged Regional Court of Appeal / Pf.II.21.591/2016/8

anonymised
Policy area
Consumers
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Szeged Regional Court of Appeal
Type
Decision
Decision date
29/03/2017
  • Hungary / Szeged Regional Court of Appeal / Pf.II.21.591/2016/8

    Key facts of the case: 

    The plaintiff signed a loan contract with the legal predecessor of the respondent (a financial institution) to purchase a car. In the individual loan contract, they first agreed on the basic terms (currency, full credit charge ratio, the amount of the monthly payments, their number and spreading). The fluctuation of the interest rate and the currency was to be accounted for on the basis of fixed foreign currency. Second, it was agreed that in questions not regulated in the loan contract, the general terms and conditions are to be consulted. Both parties consented to the contract. When signing the contract to guarantee the repayment of the loan a purchase option for the car purchased from the loan was attached to the contract. Due to the disagreement on the exchange rate applied by the respondent, the plaintiff requested the first instance court to declare the loan contract null and void: he argued that they failed to agree on its substantial elements, e. the payable amount in foreign and Hungarian currency. He argued that the contract did not comply with the requirements set in Act no. CXII of 1996 on credit institutions and financial enterprises (1996. évi CXII. törvény a hitelintézetekről és a pénzügyi vállalkozásokról) in force at the time and for this reason the provisions of Act no. IV of 1959 on the Civil Code (1959. évi IV. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről) had to be relied on when assessing the contract’s validity and its consequences.

    Outcome of the case: 

    The first instance court did not find the contract null and void and rejected the claim. The plaintiff in his appeal added further claims that were – to some extent at least – addressed by the Szeged Regional Court of Appeal. The court found that the contract was valid, the parties did agree on the most essential and substantive elements of the contract and in the present case the full amount payable and the periodic repayments did not have to be set in both currencies and it was not considered to be the contract’s essential element. On the plaintiff’s initiative the court examined whether Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC and Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, prescribes the court to ex officio assess the validity of a contractual term if that is not objected to by any of the parties in the procedure. The court emphasised that on the basis of EU law, courts have to exceptionally address the contractual terms not challenged by the parties only when it is necessary to take a decision on the claims raised during the trial, and the uniformity decisions in the field do not deal with the primary issue raised by the plaintiff and do not change the conclusion of the court. The contract was not found to be null and void, but the court defined the interest rate on the basis of which the overall amount of the loan was to be calculated and found that the call option had to be considered no longer applicable (it is unclear from the facts of the case, but it may be reasonably assumed, that the plaintiff fulfilled his payment obligation on the basis of the interest rate set by the court).

     

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    [The plaintiff] challenged the institution of uniformity decisions, in his opinion it violates the second sentence of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, because a non-legislative body [the Curia] could enact quasi-legislation, namely the uniformity decisions that are binding on courts and this violates the right to a fair trial. He articulated concrete objections against the uniformity decisions related to the so-called foreign currency-based loan cases, e.g. he considers the finding of Uniformity decision no. 3/2016 PJE unscientific according to which the more beneficial interest rate in case of loan contracts based on foreign currency compensated for the risk in exchange rate fluctuation; Uniformity decision no. 1/2016 PJE violates the applicable laws because it does not require the parties to agree on the exact amount of the loan set in foreign currency as an essential contractual term upon concluding the contract; finally Uniformity decision no. 2/2014 PJE is not applicable because it erroneously puts the burden of proof on the consumer.”

    “The Curia refers here to the fact that the plaintiff’s position, according to which the institution of uniformity decisions violates the right to a fair trial declared in Article 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union is erroneous and for this reason courts cannot apply them in their decision-making. The right to a fair trial is a procedural principle applicable in criminal and civil trials, and it cannot be interpreted in the uniformity procedures that are conducted without the participation of clients affected by concrete cases. It is furthermore important that the function of the institution of uniformity decisions is to facilitate the uniform application of law by courts, and thus guarantee that the principle of legal certainty – that is also accepted in the law of the European Union – is respected.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    [A felperes] támadta a jogegységi határozat intézményét, érvelése szerint az az Alapjogi Charta 47. cikk 2. mondatába ütközik, mivel nem jogalkotó szerv kvázi jogot alkothat azáltal, hogy a jogegységi határozatok a bíróságokra nézve kötelezőek, ez pedig sérti a tisztességes eljárás elvét. Konkrét kifogásokat is megfogalmazott az ún. devizahiteles ügyeket érintő egyes jogegységi határozatokkal szemben, így véleménye szerint tudománytalan a 3/2016. számú Polgári jogegységi határozatnak az a megállapítása, miszerint a deviza alapú kölcsönszerződéseknél a kedvezőbb kamatmérték ellentételezte az árfolyamváltozásban rejlő kockázatot; az 1/2016 PJE azért ellentétes az irányadó jogszabályokkal, mert a szerint a kölcsön devizában kifejezett összegében, mint lényeges szerződési feltétel tekintetében a feleknek nem kell megegyezniük a szerződéskötéskor; a 2/2014 PJE pedig azért nem alkalmazható, mert tévesen a fogyasztóra telepíti a bizonyítási terhet.”

    “Itt utal az ítélőtábla arra, téves a felperesnek az az álláspontja, miszerint a jogegységi határozatok intézménye sérti az Európai Unió Alapjogi Chartájának 47. cikkében rögzített tisztességes eljáráshoz való jogot, ezért azokat a bíróságok ítélkezésük során nem alkalmazhatják. A tisztességes eljáráshoz való jog a büntető és polgári perekre irányadó eljárási alapelv, amely a konkrét ügyekben érintett ügyfelek részvétele nélkül lefolytatandó jogegységi eljárásokban értelmezhetetlen. Lényeges ezentúl, hogy a jogegységi határozat intézményének rendeltetése a bíróságok egységes jogalkalmazásának elősegítése, és ezáltal a jogbiztonság - Európai Unió jogában is irányadó - alapelve érvényre juttatásának biztosítása.