The Metropolitan Court of Appeal delayed the announcement of the second instance judgment on April 7 in a lawsuit filed by Good Lender Insurance Company. Against the Hungarian state regarding the fairness of its forint loan contracts.
The court also rejected the leasing company’s application to initiate constitutional court proceedings.
GLIC leasing has appealed against a first-instance ruling in February, in which the court found unfair and therefore invalid contractual clauses in leasing contracts that allow for unilateral changes to interest and lease payments.
Modify the lease payment by adjusting the reference rate
According to the applicant’s financial institution, the lessor is entitled to modify the lease payment by adjusting the reference rate if the reference rate exceeds the contractual threshold. According to the applicant, the change was automatic, since the lessor could only adjust the remaining lease payments according to the change.
Does not qualify as an unilateral increase in interest rates
According to the leasing company, this procedure does not qualify as an unilateral increase in interest rates, and therefore the general terms and conditions are not subject to the law either. The leasing company claims that the Court of First Instance’s finding that the litigation provisions are not independent and unfair is incorrect.
The change in the purchase price of the leasing asset, the increase in purchase costs and the need for financing do not qualify as statutory fees and interest increases. In its defense, the defendant requested that the first instance judgment be upheld and that no constitutional proceedings be instituted.
Do not correspond to the reference interest rate
He argued that contractual clauses do not correspond to the reference interest rate, are considered to be genuine unilateral contract modifications and are not automatic in their effect. It added that the applicant had generally set the reference rate, which was freely adjustable, as well as the base rate, set by its own group of companies, and was entitled to unilaterally alter that rate. Thus, the plaintiff had unilateral authority to determine the level of interest and lease payments, according to the defendant.