- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-483/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency — National legislation providing for specific procedural requirements when the fairness of terms is challenged — Principle of equivalence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CA0483
62016CA0483
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case C-483/16) (*1)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Zsolt Sziber
Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.
Intervener: Mónika Szeder
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which imposes specific procedural requirements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, on actions brought by consumers who have concluded loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, containing a term stipulating a differential between the exchange rate applicable to the provision of the loan and that applicable to the repayment of the loan and/or a clause providing for an option of unilateral amendment allowing the lender to increase the interest rate, commission and costs, provided that a finding of unfairness in respect of those terms in such a contract makes it possible to restore the legal and factual situation in which the consumer would have found himself had it not been for those unfair terms.
2.Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as also applying to situations without a cross-border element.
* * *
(*1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.