CELEX: 62018CN0227
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-227/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — VE v WD

201806150411954962018/C 231/152272018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180403121321Case C-227/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — VE v WD
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1210120180403EN0015121132Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — VE v WD
   (Case C-227/18)2018/C 231/15Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court
   
   Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: VE
   
      Defendant: WD
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Taking into consideration the economic consequences, may it be considered that a contractual term is not unfair, that is to say, that it is in plain, intelligible language, where it places the exchange rate risk on the consumer –– the term being drawn up (as a standard contractual term used by the seller or supplier, and not negotiated individually) in fulfilment of an obligation to provide information, necessarily of general character, laid down by law –– but fails to state expressly that the amount of the repayment instalments to be paid in accordance with the loan agreement could be greater than the amount of the consumer’s income as noted in the examination of creditworthiness carried out by the seller or supplier, or that the amount could rise to a much greater proportion of that income [than that envisaged], also taking into account the fact that the relevant national legislation requires a specific description of the risk in writing rather than a mere statement as to the existence of a risk and its allocation, and, in addition, that the Court of Justice declared in paragraph 74 of its judgment in Case C-26/13 that the seller or supplier must not only make the consumer aware of the risk, but that it is also necessary that, on the basis of that information, the consumer be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences for him resulting from the exchange-rate risks allocated to him and, therefore, the total cost of the sum borrowed?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Taking into consideration the economic consequences, may it be considered that a contractual term is not unfair, that is to say, that it is in plain, intelligible language, where it places the exchange rate risk on the consumer –– the term being drafted (as a standard contractual term used by the seller or supplier, and not negotiated individually) in fulfilment of an obligation to provide information, necessarily of general character, laid down by law –– but fails to state expressly that the credit agreement does not set out any maximum limit for variations in the exchange rate, also taking into account the fact that the Court of Justice declared, in paragraph 74 of its judgment in Case-26/13, that the seller or supplier must not only make the consumer aware of the risk, but that it is also necessary that, on the basis of that information, the consumer be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences for him resulting from the exchange-rate risks allocated to him and, therefore, the total cost of the sum borrowed?
         
      
            3.
         
         
            May Directive 93/13, (
                  1
               ) and in particular the last recital, point 1(o) of the Annex thereto, and Article 3(3) and Article 6(1), be interpreted as meaning that — taking account especially of the requirement laid down, inter alia, in the judgment in Case C-42/15, according to which effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties are necessary for consumer protection — the following are contrary to EU law: the case-law, legal interpretation or legislative measures of a Member State, pursuant to which the legal consequence (full invalidity on grounds of infringement of a legal rule, or compensation for damage or other consequence on any legal ground), deriving in that Member State from a credit check that is not thorough and exhaustive, fails to protect the consumer and is negligent (for example, by failing to examine the effect of the exchange-rate risk consisting in a significant increase in the repayment instalments and the principal sum due), is more disadvantageous for the consumer than the restitution of the initial situation (restitutio in integrum), whereby the debtor consumer is freed from liability for the exchange-rate risk, that is to say, from the increase in repayment instalments owing to exchange-rate variations and, where appropriate, is allowed to repay the loan principal in instalments?
         
      
            4.
         
         
            With regard to the interpretation of the opportunity to examine all the terms of a contract, referred to in the twentieth recital of Directive 93/13, and the requirement that the contract be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Articles 4(2) and 5 of the same directive, are the relevant contractual terms to be regarded as not being unfair, where the loan agreement communicates any essential element (for example, the subject matter of the contract, namely the loan amount, the repayment instalments and the interest on the transaction) simply for information purposes, without making it clear whether or not the part communicated for information purposes is legally binding on the parties to the contract?
         
      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).