Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, link

When the credit agreement clearly indicates its object is a foreign currency-based loan, the consumer cannot rely on verbal discussions of the loan to prove that there was no meeting of the minds. It does not constitute unfair commercial practice if the creditor gives no specific,  thorough explanation on foreign currency-based loans being riskier to debtors, as consumers are expected to be able to do at least basic research on the subject in contracts involving significant sums.

The dispute concerned a foreign currency (specifically CHF) credit agreement between the plaintiff (the debtor), and the respondent (the creditor). A peculiarity of the contract was a disbursement limit at the beginning of the credit period, specified in HUF. Both parties provided a number of statements relating to having understood the contract’s terms as well as reading the relevant bank’s terms and conditions. All of these documents, alongside the contract itself, were included in a unified public notary document. Later on, a dispute ensued between the parties over the exact nature of the contract, specifically with regard to the foreign currency element, and the case went to court. The courts of first and second instances found in favour of the respondent, leading  the plaintiff to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

Whether the creditor practiced unfair commercial practices by allegedly relying on a public notary “rubber stamping” the credit agreement and related documents without examining a proper meeting of the minds between parties, verbally discussing a HUF loan with the consumer, and downplaying or at least failing to mention the risks associated with a foreign currency credit contract.

The Supreme Court heavily disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertations regarding the matter. First, it ruled that the plaintiff’s argument in relation to the credit agreement’s object being a HUF loan is faulty, as regardless of any verbal discussions, the plaintiff’s loan request indicated CHF as the currency, and the credit agreement’s title itself made reference to the object being a foreign currency-based loan. As such, the Supreme Court found that the consumer’s argument about a lack of consensus with regard to this element is unsupportable. As for the creditor allegedly downplaying or at least not mentioning the extra risks inherent in a foreign currency-based loan, the Supreme Court found that a consumer should be expected to thoroughly read and study a contract of such magnitude, and its subject matter. And finally, with regard to the public notary, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff failed to supply adequate amounts of proof on this matter, and even if the related assumption was overturned, that would not affect the contract’s terms.

Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

Nincs találat

Nincs találat

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance. It determined that even consumers are expected to have a minimum level of attention when it comes to contracts of sufficient magnitude, and that the plaintiff should have studied and thoroughly examined the contract. On a similar premise, it also rejected the assertation regarding the loan’s currency, as the contract clearly indicated CHF as the currency.