Order — ECLI:EU:C:2018:107
Date: 2018-02-22
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Hungary

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Orsolya Czakó v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. (Case C-126/17) Language of the case: Hungarian Referring court Fővárosi Törvényszék Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Orsolya Czakó Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. Questions referred For the purpose of determining the amount of a loan agreement, does wording, such as that of Clauses I/1 and II/1 of the agreement at issue, which gives CHF 64 731 as an indicative amount, whilst mentioning a maximum amount of HUF 8 280 000 as the financing request, and which links determination of the amount of the loan agreement to a declaration having legal effect made by the party contracting with the consumer and to the data recorded in its books, meet the criteria of plain, intelligible language required by Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC? 1 If the determination made in Clauses I/1 and II/1 of the agreement does not correspond to the notion of plain, intelligible language and it is possible to examine whether the terms of those clauses are unfair, in the event that they are considered to be unfair, may the entire agreement be declared invalid, given that, in cases in which the subject matter of the agreement is not definite, the legal consequence under national law is the invalidity of the agreement in its entirety? In the event that the agreement may be declared valid, can the amount be determined in the manner most favourable to the consumer? ____________ 1 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).