CELEX: 62017CN0118
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-118/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Zsuzsanna Dunai v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

10.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 221/2
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Zsuzsanna Dunai v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt
   (Case C-118/17)
   (2017/C 221/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Zsuzsanna Dunai
   
      Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Should point 3 [of the operative part] of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice in Case C-26/13 be interpreted as meaning that a national court may remedy the fact that a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is invalid where the continuation of the contract is contrary to the economic interests of the consumer?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of equality before the law, non-discrimination, the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process, for the parliament of a Member State to alter, by the adoption of an act, private law contracts in similar categories concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer?
               
                           2/a.
                        
                        
                           If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of equality before the law, non-discrimination, the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process, for the parliament of a Member State to alter, by the adoption of an act, various parts of loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, supposedly for consumer protection purposes but triggering an effect which is in fact contrary to the fair interests of consumer protection, in that the loan contract remains valid following those alterations and the consumer is required to continue to bear the costs resulting from the foreign exchange risk?
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               With regard to the content of contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process in respect of any civil law matter for the standardisation panel of the highest court of a Member State to direct the rulings of courts hearing such proceedings by means of ‘decisions adopted with a view to ensuring uniform interpretation of the law’?
               
                           3/a.
                        
                        
                           If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process in respect of any civil law matter for the standardisation panel of the highest court of a Member State to direct the rulings of courts hearing such proceedings by means of ‘decisions adopted with a view to ensuring uniform interpretation of the law’ where the appointment of judges as members of the standardisation panel is not carried out transparently, in accordance with predetermined rules, where the procedure before that panel is not public, and where it is not possible to know a posteriori the procedure followed, namely the expert evidence and academic works relied on and the way in which the various members have voted (for or against)?