Case C‑342/13

Katalin Sebestyén

v

Zsolt Csaba Kővári and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék)

‛Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contract for a mortgage loan concluded with a bank — Clause providing for the exclusive competence of a single arbitration tribunal — Information on the arbitration procedure provided by the bank at the conclusion of the contract — Unfair terms — Criteria for assessment’

Summary — Order of the Court (First Chamber), 3 April 2014

1. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 — Assessment of unfair nature by the national court — Criteria

   (Council Directive 93/13, recital 16, Arts 3(1) and 4(1))

2. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 — Meaning — Term of a mortgage loan contract vesting exclusive jurisdiction for hearing disputes in a permanent arbitration tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law — Assessment of unfair nature of such a term by the national court — Criteria

   (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 3(1) and (3), and Annex, para. 1(q))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 27-29)

2.  Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court concerned to determine whether a clause contained in a mortgage loan contract concluded between a bank and a consumer — vesting exclusive jurisdiction in a permanent arbitration tribunal, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, to hear all disputes arising out of that contract — must, having regard to all of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of that contract, be regarded as unfair under those provisions. In the context of its assessment, the national court must, in particular:

   —	verify whether the clause at issue has the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy; and

   —

   take account of the fact that the communication to the consumer, before the conclusion of the contract at issue, of general information on the differences between the arbitration procedure and ordinary legal proceedings cannot alone rule out the unfairness of that clause. If the clause is held to be unfair, it is for that court to draw the appropriate conclusions under national law in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause. (see para. 36, operative part)

Case C‑342/13

Katalin Sebestyén

v

Zsolt Csaba Kővári and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék)

‛Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contract for a mortgage loan concluded with a bank — Clause providing for the exclusive competence of a single arbitration tribunal — Information on the arbitration procedure provided by the bank at the conclusion of the contract — Unfair terms — Criteria for assessment’

Summary — Order of the Court (First Chamber), 3 April 2014

1. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 — Assessment of unfair nature by the national court — Criteria

   (Council Directive 93/13, recital 16, Arts 3(1) and 4(1))

2. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 — Meaning — Term of a mortgage loan contract vesting exclusive jurisdiction for hearing disputes in a permanent arbitration tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law — Assessment of unfair nature of such a term by the national court — Criteria

   (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 3(1) and (3), and Annex, para. 1(q))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 27-29)

2.  Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court concerned to determine whether a clause contained in a mortgage loan contract concluded between a bank and a consumer — vesting exclusive jurisdiction in a permanent arbitration tribunal, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, to hear all disputes arising out of that contract — must, having regard to all of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of that contract, be regarded as unfair under those provisions. In the context of its assessment, the national court must, in particular:

   —	verify whether the clause at issue has the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy; and

   —

   take account of the fact that the communication to the consumer, before the conclusion of the contract at issue, of general information on the differences between the arbitration procedure and ordinary legal proceedings cannot alone rule out the unfairness of that clause. If the clause is held to be unfair, it is for that court to draw the appropriate conclusions under national law in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause. (see para. 36, operative part)