CELEX: 62008CN0243
Language: en
Date: 2008-06-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-243/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi Városi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2008 — Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

27.9.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 247/2
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi Városi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2008 — Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi
   (Case C-243/08)
   (2008/C 247/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Budaörsi Városi Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Pannon GSM Zrt.
   
      Defendant: Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Can Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) — pursuant to which Member States are to provide that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer — be construed as meaning that the non-binding nature vis-à-vis the consumer of an unfair term introduced by the seller or supplier does not have effect ipso jure but only where the consumer successfully contests the unfair term by lodging the relevant application?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the consumer protection provided by Directive 93/13/EEC require the national court of its own motion — irrespective of the type of proceedings in question and of whether or not they are contentious — to determine that the contract before it contains unfair terms, even where no application contesting the unfair nature of the term has been lodged, thereby carrying out, of its own motion, a review of the terms introduced by the seller or supplier in the context of exercising control over its own jurisdiction?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative, what are the factors which the national court must take into account and evaluate in the context of exercising this control?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.