Case C-351/25, Trive Bank Hungary and Erinum Capital: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2025 – SQ, JL v Trive Bank Hungary Zrt., Erinum Capital Zrt.
Date: 2025-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, exchange rate, limitation of legal proceedings, right to an effective remedy, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_202505809EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5809


10.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2025 – SQ, JL v Trive Bank Hungary Zrt., Erinum Capital Zrt.


(Case C-351/25, Trive Bank Hungary and Erinum Capital)

(C/2025/5809)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SQ, JL

Defendant: Trive Bank Hungary Zrt., Erinum Capital Zrt.

Questions referred







1.


Is an application of the law of a Member State consistent with Article 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU, Articles 114(3) and 169 TFEU and Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with the principle effectiveness and the right to an effective remedy, and with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, where, by virtue of that application,






—


a consumer may, within a limitation period of five years starting from the unilateral termination of the agreement by the lender, bring a claim seeking a declaration of invalidity in respect of the agreement, on the basis that it contains a contractual term which the consumer considers unfair, and seeking a determination of the consequences of that invalidity, even where, in addition to the invalidity of the agreement, the consumer relies on the unlawfulness of the unilateral termination, the unlawful nature of which is, according to the consumer, linked to the unfair contractual term, and where,










—


in such a case, the examination of the limitation period must always precede the examination of the invalidity of the agreement as a consequence of the existence of an unfair term and the examination of the connected unlawfulness of the unilateral termination, even though the starting point for the limitation period is the time at which the unilateral termination of the agreement, which the consumer considers unlawful, occurs?














2.


Is an application of the law of a Member State consistent with Article 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU, Articles 114(3) and 169 TFEU and Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with the principle effectiveness and the right to an effective remedy, and with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13, where, by virtue of that application, from the point of view of limitation periods, there is a divergence between a claim brought by the lender in enforcement proceedings and a defence put forward by the consumer which relies on the existence of an unfair term in order to contest that claim, since, according to national law, the point from which the consumer is able to bring his or her claim is the time of the unilateral termination of the agreement by the lender and, once five years have elapsed since that time, the right of the consumer to seek a declaration of invalidity in respect of the agreement and, with it, a determination of the legal consequences of that invalidity is extinguished, even in the event that the lender pursues the consumer for the amount owed in enforcement proceedings on the basis of a notarial instrument and in those proceedings the unfair nature of the contractual terms is not examined?










3.


Is an application of the law of a Member State consistent with Article 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU, Articles 114(3) and 169 TFEU and Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with the principle effectiveness and the right to an effective remedy, and with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13, where, by virtue of that application, there is considered to be no joinder of actions – and, therefore, from the point of view of limitation periods, they are not regarded as independent actions – where the consumer brings a claim seeking a declaration that an agreement is entirely invalid due to the existence of an unfair term and, with it, the claim for restitution which has to be brought in order to determine the legal consequences of that invalidity, if all of that means that, once the claim for restitution becomes time-barred, it is not possible, independently, to examine the unfair nature of the contractual term and declare the agreement invalid, and, consequently, there is no way to seek a stay of enforcement either?










4.


Is an application of the law of a Member State consistent with Article 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU, Articles 114(3) and 169 TFEU and Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with the principle effectiveness and the right to an effective remedy, and with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, where, by virtue of that application, in relation to whether the consumer may reasonably have been aware of the unfair nature of a contractual term – and in relation to the suspension of the limitation period – it is not possible to take into account the position taken by the case-law when it comes to applying the law of the Member State regarding contractual terms that are not drafted in plain, intelligible language and which require the consumer to bear the exchange rate risk and regarding the unfair nature of such terms?






(1)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5809/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)