# C_2022207EN.01000302.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Lombard Pénzügyi és Lízing Zrt. v PN

(Case C-472/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Loan contracts - Loan denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency - Contractual term placing the foreign exchange risk on the consumer - Unfairness of a term relating to the main subject matter of the contract - Effects - Invalidity of the contract - Serious damage to the consumer - Effectiveness of Directive 93/13 - Non-binding opinion of the supreme court - Possibility of restoring the parties to the situation they would have been in if that contract had not been concluded)

(2022/C 207/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lombard Pénzügyi és Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: PN

Operative part

| 1. | Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the effectiveness of its provisions cannot, in the absence of any default rule under national law governing such a situation, be ensured only by a non-binding opinion of the supreme court of the Member State concerned indicating to the lower courts the approach to be taken in order to declare a contract valid or effective as between the parties where that contract cannot continue in existence because of the unfairness of a term relating to its main subject matter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the effectiveness of its provisions cannot, in the absence of any default rule under national law governing such a situation, be ensured only by a non-binding opinion of the supreme court of the Member State concerned indicating to the lower courts the approach to be taken in order to declare a contract valid or effective as between the parties where that contract cannot continue in existence because of the unfairness of a term relating to its main subject matter.

| 2. | Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the competent national court from deciding to restore the parties to a loan contract to the situation they would have been in if that contract had not been concluded on the ground that a term of that contract relating to its main subject matter must be declared unfair under that directive, it being understood that, if that restoration proves to be impossible, it is for that court to ensure that the consumer is ultimately in the situation he or she would have been in if the term found to be unfair had never existed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the competent national court from deciding to restore the parties to a loan contract to the situation they would have been in if that contract had not been concluded on the ground that a term of that contract relating to its main subject matter must be declared unfair under that directive, it being understood that, if that restoration proves to be impossible, it is for that court to ensure that the consumer is ultimately in the situation he or she would have been in if the term found to be unfair had never existed.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---