The Metropolitan Court of Appeal, in its second instance hearing, postponed its ruling on Tuesday to April 21 in a lawsuit filed by Good Finance Bank Europe SA’s Hungarian branch and rejected the credit institution’s request for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice.
The lawsuit was filed by the Good Finance branch office
Against the Hungarian state, seeking a declaration of the fairness of the general terms and conditions of forint loans and other terms not individually negotiated.
The claimant bank’s claim at first instance was previously rejected by the Metropolitan Court.
The court outlined the relevant points of the Good Finance Terms of Service for the case.
Thus, for example, the bank could unilaterally adjust interest rates at the date of the loan if there was a change in the yield on government securities with a maturity of over one year, changes in government interest rate subsidies on housing, CSO inflation, capital and money markets, Changes in the Bank’s business policy also made it possible to amend the unilateral contract.
Unilateral changes in fees and commissions were subject to similar conditions.
In its application, the applicant bank stated, referring to a judgment of the European Court of Justice, that the consumer should not be able to calculate the increase in his burden, but to see how different market and other changes affect his burden.
This means transparency
Pricing principles are a trade secret and require a high level of financial knowledge to understand their formulas. According to the applicant, the fact that the pricing principles contain public market data is sufficient for fairness.
The defendant State argued that even if one of the statutory conditions for the fairness of the contract was breached, the bank’s claim would have to be dismissed.
The court emphasized, among other things, the principle of symmetry in the first instance judgment, which means that in the case of a favorable change in the factors allowing unilateral interest increases, the burden on the consumer should be reduced. The Court of First Instance also criticized the fact that the consumer would not have to “read” the specifications for.
The appellant requested the Court to set aside the judgment
At first instance and to order the court seised of the case to reopen, or to change its judgment in its favor.
The bank’s appeal also pointed out that forint loans whose interest rate depended on BUBOR as a benchmark interest rate should not be unfair. In these cases the interest margin is fixed, only the interest rate changes automatically and the bank has no influence on this.
The State, as the defendant, sought approval of the first instance judgment and dismissal of the appeal. You did not support the preliminary ruling, which would result in the suspension of the case. (MTI)