On March 26, the Budapest Metropolitan Court of Appeal, acting in court of second instance, postponed the announcement of its ruling in a lawsuit against Good Finance Bank Zrt.
The court also rejected the applicant’s financial institution’s
Request that the court initiate a preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union and that it should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court (Ab) for unconstitutionality.
In its appeal, Good Finance sought a reversal of the first-instance ruling and a finding that the contractual clauses in its forint-based consumer loan, credit, and leasing contracts were fair and therefore valid.
The defendant’s representative of the Hungarian State requested that the first instance judgment be upheld that the bank’s contractual terms were unfair.
According to the applicant
According to the judgments published so far by the courts, operators are not able to adapt the contractual terms to the new circumstances. If, however, the court is unable to determine positively what regulation it would meet, then there is a legitimate doubt that the court’s interpretation thus far is inconsistent and inconsistent with the law.
According to the bank, the court of first instance has unreasonable expectations, and there are changes that cannot be described at all by mathematical methods.
The contract may only provide that, if there is a change in legislation or a central bank measure affecting the creditor’s costs or risks, the financial service provider is entitled to pass it on to the consumer in proportion. However, the use of a ratio or a metric is not possible. The requirements of the Court of First Instance are identical to the pricing principles, the content of which, however, is a business secret.
Good Finance also complained that the Metropolitan Court
Did not even consider the application of five principles, but focused solely on transparency and reality. In many cases, the bank also disagreed with the reasoning, as the Court of First Instance repeatedly argued that the principle of transparency did not apply, despite the fact that certain clauses had to be rejected because they did not fall within the scope of the law.
In its defense, the representative of the Hungarian State of the defendant emphasized that the pricing principles are not public, but this does not preclude the bank from defining in its contractual clauses the reason, extent and method of unilateral amendment in order to ensure transparency.