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 62011CN0397

    Case C-397/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Municipal Court lodged on 27 July 2011 — Jőrös Erika v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

    SL C 331, 12.11.2011, p. 6–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    27/07/2011
    Date lodged:
    27/07/2011
    Author:
    Sud
    Form:
    Pravosudna informacija
    Authentic language:
    mađarski
    Type of procedure:
    Prethodno pitanje
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    • request for interpretation 31993L0013 članak 07 P1
    Link

    12.11.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 331/6

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Municipal Court lodged on 27 July 2011 — Jőrös Erika v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

    (Case C-397/11)

    2011/C 331/09

    Language of the case: Hungarian

    Referring court

    Fővárosi Bíróság

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Jőrös Erika

    Defendant: Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

    Questions referred

    1.

    Are the procedures of the national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, having found that one of the contract’s general terms relevant to the claim is unfair, the court examines its invalidity without the parties making a specific application in that regard?

    2.

    Must the national court also proceed in accordance with question 1 in a case brought by a consumer where the determination of the invalidity of a general contract term on the ground of unfairness would ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction not of the local court but of a higher court, if the injured party were to bring a claim on that basis?

    3.

    In the event that question 2 is answered in the affirmative, may the national court also examine the unfairness of a general contract term in proceedings at second instance if the proceedings at first instance did not examine this and new facts and evidence cannot generally be taken into consideration in appeal proceedings under national law?

    (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

    Top