Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 1, 1.

Plaintiff attempts to claim partial invalidity of a foreign currency loan by claiming unfair contract terms in the loan contract.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a foreign currency loan contract in April 2008, supported by a property mortgage. The parties included two terms in the contract. The first clause stated the bank will be allowed to seek enforcement if there is a drop in the value of the mortgaged property and if the debtor doesn’t replace the lost value within a time frame specified by the bank. The second clause stated that all processes and documentation related to the debtors’ debts would be validated by a public notary, and similarly, in case of foreclosure, the process would be validated by a public notary. The plaintiff sued the defendant, asking the Court to declare these terms in the contract invalid in its claim. The plaintiff claimed that the loss in value is a subjective element unilaterally decided by the lender, which is unfair under a number of legal sources, including the 93/13/EEC. The case went to appeal.

Whether the terms are unfair based on article 1(1)(b) of the Directive.

The Court decided that the terms are not unfair under the Directive, because the Directive only forbids the contractual party to determine whether its own performance is contractually appropriate. In this case, the bank is evaluating the debtor’s performance, not its own.

Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

Nincs találat

Nincs találat

The Court partially changed the decision of the lower Court, but accepted the rest.