The court’s decision shows Katalin Sebestyén had asked a Hungarian court to declare invalid a clause in her contract with Raiffeisen Bank that said any contractual disputes could be decided only by an arbitration tribunal against whose decision there could be no appeal.
A description of the dispute noted that “the bank specifically drew Ms. Sebestyén’s attention” to this fact as well as to the fact that the costs of such an arbitration procedure “tended to be higher” than those of ordinary legal proceedings.
The ECJ opined that when a Hungarian court considers the case, it must in particular determine whether the clause hinders the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, and take into account that communicating to the consumer the difference between arbitration and ordinary legal proceedings before the contract was signed “cannot alone rule out the unfairness” of the clause.
The case was the second filed with the Luxembourg court involving a Hungarian borrower with an forex-based bank loan. The first involves individuals Árpád and Hajnalka Kásler against OTP Bank; a decision on this case is expected on Wednesday.
Producing journalism that is worthy of the name is a costly business. For over 30 years, the publishers, editors and reporters of the Budapest Business Journal have striven to bring you business news that works, information that you can trust, that is factual, accurate and presented without fear or favor.Newspaper organizations across the globe have struggled to find a business model that allows them to continue to excel, without compromising their ability to perform. Most recently, some have experimented with the idea of involving their most important stakeholders, their readers.
We would like to offer that same opportunity to our readers. We would like to invite you to help us deliver the quality business journalism you require. Hit our Support the BBJ button and you can choose the how much and how often you send us your contributions.
