The Szabolcs Savings Cooperative’s action against the Hungarian state for foreign currency loans was dismissed by the Metropolitan Court in its first-instance, non-final judgment on Thursday, in the case of Argenta Credit Financial Services Ltd.
The court also rejected Szabolcs Savings Cooperative’s motion to suspend the proceedings and its request that the court go to the Constitutional Court.
The judge explained in his explanation
That the consumer is a natural person facing a qualified financial institution and that, according to a previous judgment of the European Court of Justice, the issue of clarity needs to be more carefully addressed. However, the wording of the contractual provisions of the Savings Co-operative under investigation is too general and too broad.
In the oral argument of the judgment, the issue of cancellation was emphasized, as the judge considered it unfair that the consumer could only terminate the contract if the interest rate of the transaction changed.
In a lawsuit against Argentine Credit Financial Services Ltd. against the Hungarian state, the court postponed its decision to September 23.
The legal representative of the financial institution
Has long argued for the principle of transparency, arguing that the financial institution has provided sufficient information to allow the consumer to act with care.
The applicant’s legal representative also pointed out that the consumer was not handicapped, certain qualities could be expected of him, and he could seek the advice of a professional to understand the technical issues.
A representative of the defendant’s
Hungarian state said that the plaintiff’s representative acknowledged in his recent statement that the terms and conditions of Argenta’s terms and conditions were unclear and transparent.
On the day of the hearing, the court received a statement of public interest from a customer of the financial institution. In its view, the operation of the credit institution is not in compliance with the law and is subject to supervisory review. The applicant has refuted this claim.