Request for a preliminary ruling from the Esztergomi Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 5 January 2026 – AJ v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt., Intrum Zrt.

(Case C-1/26, ERSTE Bank Hungary and Intrum)

(C/2026/2202)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Esztergomi Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AJ

Defendants: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt., Intrum Zrt.

Questions referred

Where the court has informed the consumer that:

‘According to paragraphs 46, 94 and 97 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 2021, Bank BPH (C-19/20, EU:C:2021:341), in order for the consumer to be able to give free and informed consent, it is for the national court to indicate to the parties, objectively and exhaustively and irrespective of whether or not they are represented by a professional representative, the legal consequences which the removal of the unfair term may entail, in particular where its non-application is liable to lead to the invalidation of the contract in its entirety.

In accordance with the second part of paragraph 94 of the abovementioned judgment, the consumer must a fortiori be entitled to object to being protected, under that same system, against the unfavourable consequences caused by the contract being invalidated in its entirety where he or she does not wish to rely on that protection.

The court considers that, on the basis of the above, the consumer may state that he or she requests the application or the non-application of the laws on foreign currency loans [“the DH laws”]. The information obligation incumbent on the court is particularly relevant where the consumer’s statement that he or she wishes to waive the application of the consumer protection provisions of the DH laws renders the entire contract null and void, which may have particularly unfavourable consequences for him or her.

The court is to inform the parties that, if the applicant requests the disapplication of the DH laws and thus waives the application of those rules, the removal of the unfair and void terms providing for an indexation mechanism based on the exchange rate differential may have the legal consequence of invalidating the contract, although that is a point of law on which the court will rule in its decision terminating the proceedings.

In the light of the foregoing, the legal consequence of the invalidity of an unfair contract term depends on the assessment of that point of law. If the court declares the entire contract to be invalid, it is to inform the applicant, in his or her capacity as consumer, that the consequence of doing so is that the parties must settle the accounts between them on the date of termination, which may have unfavourable consequences for the consumer, in so far as it may trigger the obligation to pay a large sum at once’,

– and, thereafter, the consumer has maintained his or her statement that he or she is not requesting the application of the DH laws, but rather their disapplication – which does not have particularly unfavourable consequences for him or her – and has sought an order declaring the contract to be invalid and reinstating the original situation pursuant to the EU consumer protection directive, does the court, in its judgment, infringe the provisions of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) if, contrary to the wishes expressed by the consumer as set out above, it applies the DH laws in its decision and, under those laws, finds the contract to be valid and dismisses the consumer’s claims seeking an order declaring the contract to be invalid, reinstating the original situation and requiring settlement of the accounts between the parties, or is it in accordance with EU law for the court, having regard to the consumer’s statement, to declare the contract to be invalid and to apply the legal consequences set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-630/23?

---

(1)   OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.