The court of first instance upheld the ruling of the court of first instance in the foreign currency-credited litigation of Good Finance Insurance Bank, Which ruled at second instance that the general terms and conditions of the bank were unfair.
Plaintiff’s financial institution to pay
In a ruling issued in Good Finance on Wednesday, the court also ordered the plaintiff’s financial institution to pay HUF 380,000 plus VAT to the defendant’s Hungarian state. The judge referred in his reasoning to the ruling of the European Court of Justice that the principle of transparency should be interpreted broadly, as the consumer is at a disadvantage with regard to the level of information with the financial institution.
Unilateral contract modification
Therefore, when examining the criteria of clarity and clarity, not only should they be considered grammatically comprehensible for the consumer, but also whether the contract makes the operation of the unilateral contract modification mechanism transparent, the consumer should be able to to consider the economic consequences, the judge noted.
The judge pointed out that, when reading the terms of the contract under investigation, the consumer was obviously not in a position to check whether a unilateral contract amendment was warranted, nor did he make the specific operation of the mechanism transparent to the consumer.
Concerning the Code of Conduct, which was specifically referred to in the appellant’s appeal, the court noted that the court could review the nullity of the conditions for a unilateral amendment of a contract contained in a code of conduct adopted by financial institutions.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the Code is not a legal act, but a useful agreement that lays down the rules of conduct for a given commercial sector. On the other hand, the court does not apply to the court as a mandatory provision, the judge noted. Compliance with the code in the asphalt list does not preclude a court review of unfair terms, Good Finance said.