Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MP Gbor Fodor
National Assembly
Budapest
Dear Member of Parliament,
The following information is in reply to your question No. K/2811 Why Are Forex Loan Lawsuits on
Hold?, which requires a written response under Section 42(9) of Act XXXVI of 2012 on the National
Assembly.
In its Civil Law Uniformity Decision 2/2014, the Supreme Court (Kria) adopted a guidance
decision about the unfairness of certain clauses of consumer loan contracts (exchange rate spread,
clauses enabling the unilateral amendment of a contract). To ensure that the principles laid down in the
Kria decision are enforced directly not only in pending litigations but also in connection with nonlitigated claims in connection with consumer loan contracts, the National Assembly adopted Act
XXXVIII of 2014 on the Settlement of Particular Issues Related to the Uniformity Decision of the
Supreme Court (Kria) on Consumer Loans Provided by Financial Institutions (hereinafter referred to
as: Uniformity Act), which enacts the principles laid down in the Krias uniformity decision.
Moreover, the Uniformity Act stipulates an obligation for financial institutions to prove in court the
fairness of contractual clauses deemed unfair under the presumption laid down, i.e., financial
institutions may bring an action against the Hungarian State in which they prove their contractual
clauses were fair. The purpose envisaged by this is that the burden should not lie with the consumers
to bring action individually or to prove the unfairness of contractual clauses in their pending actions
against the financial institution.
The next milestone in settling the issues related to foreign currency loans was the adoption of Act XL
of 2014 on the Rules of Settlement laid down in Act XXXVIII of 2014 on the Settlement of Particular
Issues Related to the Uniformity Decision of the Supreme Court (Kria) on Consumer Loans Provided
by Financial Institutions, and Other Particular Provisions (hereinafter referred to as: Settlement Rules
Act), which is integrally related to the Uniformity Act. The Settlement Rules Act aims at ensuring that
revamped settlements between the financial institution and the consumers after the fairness or
unfairness of certain contractual clauses are no longer matters of dispute, as explained above take
place according to the basic principles laid down in the law.
Therefore, one of the goals pursued by halting the lawsuits previously brought in the matter of
consumer loan contracts is to establish, prior to a decision being adopted in the given case, which
of the financial institutions contractual clauses qualify as unfair so that instead of having each
consumer prove this individually in a separate action against the financial institution, the financial
institution has to do so in an action brought against the Hungarian State. Additionally, a hold on the
actions also seeks to ensure that the revamped settlement between the consumer and the financial
institution specified in the Settlement Rules Act can be implemented. If all these matters occur
Mailing address: 1357 Budapest, Pf. 2 Phone: (06 1) 795 9512 E-m ail: miniszter@im.gov.hu
between the contractual parties (i.e., the financial institution and the consumer) fairly and in
consideration of the legal provisions, there will be no need to pursue the action on hold or, in the case
of non-litigated claims, to bring a lengthy court action. However, if a dispute still remains between
the parties in the pending action, then the new rules of settlement, which are more favourable to
the consumer, can be enforced in the given action. All these facilitate a prompter and satisfactory
settlement of the legal relationships concerned.
Please be advised that there are currently roughly 180,000 civil and economic actions before firstinstance courts, and even now the matter being discussed affects 640,000 consumer loan
contracts. One can easily picture the impact in terms of the caseload of the judicial system and the
time limits for settling the cases if each consumer affected brought a court action to enforce their
rights. At the same time, the legislature has established a regulation which makes it possible to reach
a lawful settlement that takes consumers rights into consideration and does so within the shortest
time under the given circumstances and, if at all possible, without litigation. At the same time, this
regulation renders pending litigations irrelevant on account of the prescribed settlement rules and so
makes it worthwhile for the parties in action to terminate them.
The legislature intends to expedite the aforementioned goals with its own tools. Under Section 40 of
the Settlement Rules Act, if the parties to the action settle no later than the first hearing date following
the resumption of proceedings or if they jointly request termination of the action, the duties of the
court action are paid by the state; each party pays its own costs in excess of this, and the court will
decide on the matters ex officio. Court fees are also paid by the state if the claimant abandons the
claim no later than the first hearing date following the resumption of proceedings, thereby causing the
court action to be terminated. Thus, these provisions are also aimed at incentivising the parties to
terminate the suits.
Therefore, the actions put on hold may be resumed once the revamped settlement prescribed for the
parties by law has been put into place, which basically means once the revised settlement has been
reported to the court. All this is primarily for the benefit of the debtors, but the banks and the justice
system also benefit because it provides an opportunity for the final settlement which will facilitate the
conclusion of pending litigations and the final resolution of disputes between the parties so as to
prevent any need for further litigation.
Budapest, 5 February 2015
Yours faithfully,
Dr Lszl Trcsnyi
Mailing address: 1357 Budapest, Pf. 2 Phone: (06 1) 795 9512 E-m ail: miniszter@im.gov.hu
(/n
2%M
IGAZSGGYI MINISZTE R
kezett:
/
1
7.tJ15 FrrFt
Iktatszm : VII/24/2/201 5
Fodor Gbor kpvisel r rszre
Magyar Orszggy ls
Budapest
Tisztelt Kpvisel r !
Az Orszggylsrl szl 2012 . vi XXXVI . trvny 42 . (9) bekezdsben foglaltak alapj n
rsbeli vlaszt ignyl Mirt llnak a devizahiteles perek cm, K/2811 . szm krdsr e
az albbi tjkoztatst adom .
A Kria a 2/2014 . Polgri jogegysgi hatrozatban irnymutat dntst hozott a
fogyaszti klcsnszerz dsek egyes rendelkezseinek (rfolyamrs, egyoldal
szerz dsmdosts lehetsge) tisztessgtelensgrl. Annak rdekben, hogy a Kri a
dntsben kifejtett elvek ne csak a folyamatban lv perekben, hanem a nem perestet t
fogyaszti klcsnszerz dsekkel kapcsolatos ignyek vonatkozsban is kzvetlen l
rvnyre jussanak, az Orszggyls elfogadta a Krinak a pnzgyi intzmnyek fogyaszt i
klcsnszerzdseire vonatkoz jogegysgi hatrozatval kapcsolatos egyes krdse k
rendezsrl szl 2014. vi iXVIII. trvnyt (a tovbbiakban : jogegysgi trvny), amely
Tisztelettel :
Postacm : 1357 Budapest, Pf 2 Telefon : (06 1) 795 9512 E-mail : miniszter@im govhu
l mn sz m Orsz.ggylsi kcpvisel
i*t :
2015 JAN . 2 1
rsbeli krds
devizahiteles perek ?
cmmel.
Tisztelt Miniszter r !
Az llam s hitelintzetek kztt rekordid alatt, 2014 vgre joger sen lezrulta k
azok perek, melyeket hitelintzetek indtottak annak rdekben, hogy jogszer
szerzdsktsi gyakorlatukat bizonytsk . Ugyanakkor azok perek, melyeket az
adsok ndto tt ak pnzintzeteikkel szemben llnak, mivel 2014. vi XL. trvny azok
felfggesztst 2015 . december 31-ig elrendelte.
1. Mi indokolja devizahiteles perek felfggesztst 2015. december 31-ig, klns
tekintettel az authiteles perekre, ahol nincs forintosts, amit meg kellen e
vrni ?
Fodor Gbor
Magyar Liberlis P rt