16.6.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/8

(Case C-342/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)

((Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contract for a mortgage loan concluded with a bank - Clause providing for the exclusive competence of a single arbitration tribunal - Information on the arbitration procedure provided by the bank at the conclusion of the contract - Unfair terms - Criteria for assessment))

2014/C 184/11

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Katalin Sebestyén

Defendants: Zsolt Csaba Kővári, OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt, Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, p. 29) — Individual having concluded with a bank a contract for a mortgage loan with a clause providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of a body of arbitrators — National legislation providing no right of appeal against arbitration decisions — Explanations concerning the arbitration procedure supplied by the bank at the time the contract was concluded

Operative part of the order

Article 3(1) and (3) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court concerned to determine whether a clause contained in a mortgage loan contract concluded between a bank and a consumer — vesting exclusive jurisdiction in a permanent arbitration tribunal, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, to hear all disputes arising out of that contract — must, having regard to all of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of that contract, be regarded as unfair under those provisions. In the context of its assessment, the national court must, in particular:

verify whether the clause at issue has the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy; and

take account of the fact that the communication to the consumer, before the conclusion of the contract at issue, of general information on the differences between the arbitration procedure and ordinary legal proceedings cannot alone rule out the unfairness of that clause.

If the clause is held to be unfair, it is for that court to draw the appropriate conclusions under national law in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 336, 16. 11. 2013.