# C_2010346EN.01003202.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 September 2010 — Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v Invitel Távközlési Zrt.

(Case C-472/10)

()

2010/C 346/53

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Pest Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

Applicant:

Defendant: Invitel Távközlési Zrt.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on any consumer where a body appointed by law and competent for that purpose seeks a declaration of the invalidity of that unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract on behalf of consumers in an action in the public interest (popularis actio)?
  May Article 6(1) of that directive be interpreted, where an order which benefits consumers who are not party to the proceedings is made, or the application of an unfair standard contract term is prohibited, in an action in the public interest, as meaning that an unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract is not binding on all consumers or as regards the future, so that the court has to apply the consequences in law thereof of its own motion? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on any consumer where a body appointed by law and competent for that purpose seeks a declaration of the invalidity of that unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract on behalf of consumers in an action in the public interest (popularis actio)?

1

popularis actio

May Article 6(1) of that directive be interpreted, where an order which benefits consumers who are not party to the proceedings is made, or the application of an unfair standard contract term is prohibited, in an action in the public interest, as meaning that an unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract is not binding on all consumers or as regards the future, so that the court has to apply the consequences in law thereof of its own motion?

| 2. | May Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, in conjunction with points 1(j) and 2(d) of the annex applicable by virtue of Article 3(3) of that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that where a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral amendment of a contract term without explicitly describing the method by which prices vary or giving valid reasons in the contract, that contract term is unfair ipso jure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, in conjunction with points 1(j) and 2(d) of the annex applicable by virtue of Article 3(3) of that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that where a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral amendment of a contract term without explicitly describing the method by which prices vary or giving valid reasons in the contract, that contract term is unfair ipso jure?

ipso jure

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

---