|
5.8.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 263/3 |
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — GT v HS
(Case C-38/17) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) - Article 4(2) - Article 6(1) - Loan agreement denominated in foreign currency - The exchange rate applicable to the sum made available in domestic currency communicated to the consumer after the agreement has been concluded)
(2019/C 263/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: GT
Defendant: HS
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 91/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts are to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of that Member State, under which a loan agreement is not invalid if it is denominated in foreign currency and, although it specifies the sum corresponding to that set out in the consumer’s application for finance in domestic currency, does not indicate the exchange rate applicable to that sum for the purpose of determining the definitive amount of the loan in foreign currency, but at the same time stipulates, in one of its terms, that that rate will be set by the lender in a separate document after the agreement has been concluded,
|
— |
where that term is in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, in that the mechanism for calculating the total amount lent and the exchange rate applicable are indicated transparently, so that a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer may evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him of entering into the agreement, including, in particular, the total cost of the loan, or, if it is apparent that the term is not in plain intelligible language, |
|
— |
where that term is not unfair, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the directive, or, if it is unfair, the agreement concerned is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/31. |