Case C-137/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v Ferenc Schneider (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Criteria for assessment — Examination by the national court of its own motion of the unfairness of a term conferring jurisdiction — Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice)
Date: 2010-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, unfair terms of contract








C_2011013EN.01000201.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v Ferenc Schneider
(Case C-137/08) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Criteria for assessment - Examination by the national court of its own motion of the unfairness of a term conferring jurisdiction - Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice)
2011/C 13/02
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: Ferenc Schneider

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, 29) — Contractual term granting jurisdiction to a judicial body which is located closer to the registered office of the service provider than the place of establishment of the consumer — Power of the national courts to assess, of their own motion, the unfair nature of a term granting jurisdiction in the context of the examination of its jurisdiction — Criteria for the assessment of the unfair nature of the term

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice does not preclude a provision of national law which provides that the court which initiates a preliminary reference procedure is at the same time to inform, of its own motion, the Minister with responsibility for Justice in the Member State concerned;










2.


Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union extends to the interpretation of the concept of ‘unfair term’ used in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and in the annex thereto, and to the criteria which the national court may or must apply when examining a contractual term in the light of the provisions of that Directive, bearing in mind that it is for that court to determine, in the light of those criteria, whether a particular contractual term is actually unfair in the circumstances of the case;










3.


The national court must investigate of its own motion whether a term conferring exclusive territorial jurisdiction in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which is the subject of a dispute before it, falls within the scope of Directive 93/13 and, if it does, assess of its own motion whether such a term is unfair.






(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.