# C_2018142EN.01001701.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/17

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Orsolya Czakó

(Case C-126/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 4(2), 5 and 6(1) - Terms defining the main subject matter of the contract - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Scope of the term ‘drafted in plain, intelligible language’ - Partial or total invalidity of the contract))

(2018/C 142/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

Applicant:

Defendant: Orsolya Czakó

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a bank in a Member State, in which the amount of money that will be made available to that consumer denominated in a foreign currency as an accounting currency, defined in relation to the payment currency, is clearly indicated, satisfy the requirement of those provisions that contractual terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language. In so far as the determination of that amount depends on the exchange rate applicable at the time of the release of the funds, that requirement means that the methods of calculation of the amount actually loaned and the rate of exchange applicable should be transparent, so that an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect may assess, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from that contract, including, inter alia, the total cost of the sum borrowed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a bank in a Member State, in which the amount of money that will be made available to that consumer denominated in a foreign currency as an accounting currency, defined in relation to the payment currency, is clearly indicated, satisfy the requirement of those provisions that contractual terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language. In so far as the determination of that amount depends on the exchange rate applicable at the time of the release of the funds, that requirement means that the methods of calculation of the amount actually loaned and the rate of exchange applicable should be transparent, so that an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect may assess, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from that contract, including, inter alia, the total cost of the sum borrowed.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which a national court finds that the terms of a loan contract concluded between a consumer and a bank are unfair, such as the terms at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude that court from declaring that that contract is invalid in its entirety if it cannot continue in existence after the deletion of those terms. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which a national court finds that the terms of a loan contract concluded between a consumer and a bank are unfair, such as the terms at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude that court from declaring that that contract is invalid in its entirety if it cannot continue in existence after the deletion of those terms.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

1

---