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 62010CA0472

    Case C-472/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v Invitel Távközlési Zrt (Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 3(1) and (3) — Articles 6 and 7 — Consumer contracts — Unfair terms — Unilateral amendment of the terms of a contract by a seller or supplier — Action for an injunction brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national legislation — Declaration of the unfair nature of a term — Legal effects)

    OJ C 174, 16.6.2012, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.6.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 174/7

    Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v Invitel Távközlési Zrt

    (Case C-472/10) (1)

    (Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) and (3) - Articles 6 and 7 - Consumer contracts - Unfair terms - Unilateral amendment of the terms of a contract by a seller or supplier - Action for an injunction brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national legislation - Declaration of the unfair nature of a term - Legal effects)

    2012/C 174/08

    Language of the case: Hungarian

    Referring court

    Pest Megyei Bíróság

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

    Defendant: Invitel Távközlési Zrt

    Re:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling — Pest Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 3(1), in conjunction with points 1(j) and 2(d) of the annex and Article 6(1), of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Term allowing a seller or supplier to amend unilaterally the terms of a contract without a valid reason and without explicitly describing the method by which prices vary — Unfairness of the term — Legal effects of a finding of unfairness of a term in the context of an action in the public interest

    Operative part of the judgment

    1.

    It is for the national court, ruling on an action for an injunction, brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national law, to assess, with regard to Article 3(1) and (3) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the unfair nature of a term included in the general business conditions of consumer contracts by which a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral amendment of fees connected with the service to be provided, without setting out clearly the method of fixing those fees or specifying a valid reason for that amendment. As part of this assessment, the national court must determine, inter alia, whether, in light of all the terms appearing in the general business conditions of consumer contracts which include the contested term, and in the light of the national legislation setting out rights and obligations which could supplement those provided by the general business conditions at issue, the reasons for, or the method of, the amendment of the fees connected with the service to be provided are set out in plain, intelligible language and, as the case may be, whether consumers have a right to terminate the contract.

    2.

    Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) and (2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

    —

    it does not preclude the declaration of invalidity of an unfair term included in the standard terms of consumer contracts in an action for an injunction, provided for in Article 7 of that directive, brought against a seller or supplier in the public interest, and on behalf of consumers, by a body appointed by national legislation from producing, in accordance with that legislation, effects with regard to all consumers who concluded with the seller or supplier concerned a contract to which the same general business conditions apply, including with regard to those consumers who were not party to the injunction proceedings;

    —

    where the unfair nature of a term in the general business conditions has been acknowledged in such proceedings, national courts are required, of their own motion, and also with regard to the future, to draw all the consequences which are provided by national law in order to ensure that consumers who have concluded a contract with the seller or supplier to which those general business conditions apply will not be bound by that term.

    (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

    Top