|
7.8.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 256/3 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 May 2017 — VE v WD
(Case C-232/17)
(2017/C 256/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: VE
Defendant: WD
Questions referred
|
1. |
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 that 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 in the case where the consumer is not given an opportunity to examine the amount of any essential element of the loan agreement (the subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount, the repayment instalments and the interest on the transaction) until after the agreement has been concluded (not because this is objectively necessary but pursuant to a stipulation to that effect which has been laid down by the seller or supplier in the standard terms and conditions of contract and has not been individually negotiated), by means of a declaration of intent by the seller or supplier which is unilateral (notwithstanding that it states that it forms part of the agreement) and legally binding on the consumer? |
|
2. |
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 that 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 in the case where the loan agreement communicates any essential element thereof (the subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount, the repayment instalments and the interest on the transaction) only by use of the expression ‘for information purposes’, without making it clear whether or not the part communicated for information purposes is legally binding or capable of forming the basis of rights and obligations? |
|
3. |
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 that 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 in the case where the loan agreement defines any essential element by using incorrect terminology, in particular where, in a foreign-exchange-based loan agreement (in which the credit provided for in the loan agreement is determined and recorded in a foreign currency (‘the credit currency’) and the obligation to pay that credit is fulfilled in the national currency (‘the fulfilment currency’)),
|
|
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 that 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 in the case where, in a foreign-exchange-based loan agreement (not because this is objectively necessary but pursuant to a stipulation to this effect which has been laid down by the seller or supplier in the standard terms and conditions of contract and has not been not been individually negotiated), the [elements forming the] subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount and repayment instalments,
|