Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62011CN0472

    Case C-472/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 September 2011 — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Csaba Csipai and Viktória Csipai

    OJ C 370, 17.12.2011, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    16/09/2011
    Date lodged:
    16/09/2011
    Author:
    Court of Justice
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    Hungarian
    Type of procedure:
    Reference for a preliminary ruling
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    • request for interpretation 31993L0013 article 06 P1
    • request for interpretation 31993L0013 article 07 P1
    Link

    17.12.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 370/16

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 September 2011 — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Csaba Csipai and Viktória Csipai

    (Case C-472/11)

    2011/C 370/26

    Language of the case: Hungarian

    Referring court

    Fővárosi Bíróság

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

    Defendant: Csaba Csipai, Viktória Csipai

    Questions referred

    1.

    Are the procedures of a national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, where a contract term is held to be unfair, and the parties did not submit a claim to that effect, the court informs them that it holds sentence 4 of clause 29 of the standard contract terms of the loan agreement between the parties to the proceedings to be invalid? That invalidity arises from breach of the legislation, namely Paragraph 1(1)(c) and (2)(j) of Government Decree 18/1999 on Unfair Contract Terms.

    2.

    In the circumstances of the first question, is it permissible for the court to direct the parties to the proceedings to make a statement in relation to the contract term in question, so that the legal implications of any unfairness may be established and so that the aims expressed in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC may be achieved?

    3.

    In the circumstances described above, is it permissible for the court, when examining an unfair contract term, to examine all the terms of the contract, or may it examine only the terms on which the party concluding the contract with the consumer bases his claim?

    (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

    Top