# C_2023216EN.01001701.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — MJ v AxFina Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-705/21, (1) AxFina Hungary)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 6 and 7 - Loan agreements denominated in foreign currency - Legal consequences of a declaration that a loan agreement is invalid because of the unfairness of a term in that agreement - Contractual term placing the exchange rate risk on the consumer)

(2023/C 216/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MJ

Defendant: AxFina Hungary Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, those provisions preclude that agreement from being declared valid and the content of the consumer’s obligations arising from that term from being adapted by means of a change in the currency of that agreement and the interest rate set in that agreement, or a ceiling on the exchange rate of that currency. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, those provisions preclude that agreement from being declared valid and the content of the consumer’s obligations arising from that term from being adapted by means of a change in the currency of that agreement and the interest rate set in that agreement, or a ceiling on the exchange rate of that currency.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, that provision precludes that agreement, during the period from the date of its conclusion to the date of the entry into force of national legislation providing for the conversion into national currency of loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency, from being maintained in force by replacing that term with general provisions of national law, in so far as those provisions of national law cannot usefully replace the same term by a mere substitution by the national court which does not require action on the part of that court that would amount to revising the content of an unfair term in that contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a term which places the exchange risk on the consumer results — because of its unfairness — in the invalidity of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, but repayable in the national currency, in which that term appears, that provision precludes that agreement, during the period from the date of its conclusion to the date of the entry into force of national legislation providing for the conversion into national currency of loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency, from being maintained in force by replacing that term with general provisions of national law, in so far as those provisions of national law cannot usefully replace the same term by a mere substitution by the national court which does not require action on the part of that court that would amount to revising the content of an unfair term in that contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---