Injunctions Directive, link Injunctions Directive, Article 2

Not reading through a loan agreement thoroughly is not excusable for the consumer, and it can only rely on an unfairness argument to void the contract in two specific ways.

The Court of Appeal made the relevance of a public interest claim based on Directive 2009/22/EC evident in arguments related to unfair terms towards consumers.

The case concerned a loan agreement based on foreign currency. The plaintiff did not sign the loan agreement with the respondent, but with a third party acting as the representative of the respondent. The agreement contained a notification about exchange rate risks, and the plaintiff was provided a terms and conditions document containing a similar notification. However, a dispute emerged between the parties regarding the increased payments incurred by exchange rate fluctuation, and the case went to court. The Court of First Instance decided in favour of the respondent, and its decision was thus appealed by the plaintiff.

Whether not providing a consumer with specific and direct notification about currency exchange rate risks, and only providing a larger notification that also contains said risk, is sufficient enough for said risk to become a part of the loan contract.

The Court of Appeal determined that the plaintiff incorrectly referenced national legislation as the legal basis for its claim and later appeal, and thus their arguments were  unsubstantiated. It noted that unfairness (as a reason for voiding the contract in the protection of consumers) in consumer loan agreements is only enforceable through two methods: either through a collective, public interest claim based on Hungarian legislation implementing Directive 2009/22/EC, or through an individual claim based on specific legal instruments. The plaintiff failed to utilise either option.

Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

Nincs találat

Nincs találat

The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. It rejected the consumer’s arguments due to it not being based on an individual claim based on specific legal instruments, nor a collective, public interest claim.