# C_2020423EN.01002902.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 30 September 2020 — Lombard Lízing Zrt. v PN

(Case C-472/20)

(2020/C 423/44)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lombard Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: PN

Questions referred

| 1. | If the unfair contract term concerns the main subject matter of the contract (the information on the exchange rate was not compliant), with the result that the contract cannot continue in existence, and there is no agreement between the parties, does the fact that, in the absence of any default rule under national law, guidance on a declaration of the validity or effectiveness of the contract is provided by a position statement adopted by the highest court which is, however, not binding on lower courts, ensure the full effectiveness of Directive 93/13? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

If the unfair contract term concerns the main subject matter of the contract (the information on the exchange rate was not compliant), with the result that the contract cannot continue in existence, and there is no agreement between the parties, does the fact that, in the absence of any default rule under national law, guidance on a declaration of the validity or effectiveness of the contract is provided by a position statement adopted by the highest court which is, however, not binding on lower courts, ensure the full effectiveness of Directive 93/13? (1)

| 2. | If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, is it possible to restore the original position in a situation where the contract cannot continue in existence due to the unfairness of a term concerning its main subject matter, there is no agreement between the parties, and the position statement referred to above cannot be applied? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, is it possible to restore the original position in a situation where the contract cannot continue in existence due to the unfairness of a term concerning its main subject matter, there is no agreement between the parties, and the position statement referred to above cannot be applied?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, can the law impose a requirement in respect of [this] type of contract stipulating that, when making an application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the main subject matter of the contract, the consumer must also make an application for a declaration of the validity or effectiveness of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, can the law impose a requirement in respect of [this] type of contract stipulating that, when making an application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the main subject matter of the contract, the consumer must also make an application for a declaration of the validity or effectiveness of the contract?

| 4. | If the answer to the second question referred is in the negative, where it is not possible to restore the original position, is it possible for contracts to be declared valid or effective by means of ex post legislation, in the interests of ensuring a balance between the parties? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the second question referred is in the negative, where it is not possible to restore the original position, is it possible for contracts to be declared valid or effective by means of ex post legislation, in the interests of ensuring a balance between the parties?

---

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

---