The ruling was postponed until October 29 in the Santander Consumer Finance Finance Corporation’s lawsuit on Wednesday at the Court of Appeal in Budapest.
In its judgment of 17 September, the Metropolitan Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action against Santander Consumer Finance in a lawsuit against the Hungarian state.
The applicant applied to the financial institution
In its appeal, the applicant applied to the financial institution for a stay of the proceedings and for a preliminary ruling to be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, claiming that the law on foreign currency loans was contrary to EU law. At the same time, he proposed that the court should also refer the matter to the Constitutional Court (Ab) because of its conflict with the Basic Law and the international treaty.
The applicant referred to the fact that other courts dealing with foreign currency pairs had referred to Ab, the outcome of which could also affect the course of this case.
The first instance judgment be upheld
In its defense, the defendant’s Hungarian legal representative requested that the first instance judgment be upheld. He emphasized that because other cases were referred to Ab, it does not bind the court that is dealing with the matter. The representative of the Hungarian State pointed out that there is no EU law directly applicable or directly applicable in the present case, and the directives cited in the appellant’s appeal are irrelevant to the dispute.
The law elevated Hungarian judicial practice to a level of legislation that is in line with the guidelines, he added. An examination of whether a law is contrary to an EU act cannot be the subject of a preliminary ruling procedure but can only be examined in the context of an infringement procedure, the defendant pointed out.
At the hearing, the plaintiff’s legal representative stated
In respect of partial invalidity, that, from a common sense and logic point of view, a specific increase in fees, costs or interest was always based on a set of communicated reasons, which is the creditor’s legal obligation. Changes in interest or fees that are detrimental to the consumer are the result of a set of specific, specific causes, he said.
The notice will always put the debtor in a position to check the causes and the size of the raise, he said. He added that the same control was also available to the authority. Thus, the defendant’s claim that unfairness should be accepted or denied in its entirety is illogical, said a financial lawyer.