The Court of Appeal, acting in second instance, upheld its first instance decisions in Good Finance Mortgage Bank Plc. And Good Finance Commercial Bank Zrt. decision.
The court of second instance shared in substance the position
The Metropolitan Court in both credit institutions that the request for suspension of the proceedings and the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the request for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice were unfounded. He stated that the Court of First Instance had reached the correct legal conclusion that the contractual clauses in the litigation had not been considered fair.
He also pointed out that, among the conjunctural conditions listed in the law, the transparency, clear and clear wording of the contractual clauses had to be examined above all. On appeal, he stated that it was not necessary to examine the other conditions.
In a lawsuit against Good Finance
Good Finance Mortgage Bank has to pay HUF 532 thousand + VAT to Good Finance Commercial Bank within 15 days, and Good Finance Commercial Bank to pay 40 thousand HUF + VAT to the defendant.
In a lawsuit against Good Finance Ingatlanlízing Zrt against the Hungarian state, the Metropolitan Court of Appeal, acting on second instance, postponed the announcement of the decision until October 30.
On 30 September, the Metropolitan Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff’s action, finding no grounds for staying the proceedings and for the conditions of partial invalidity.
According to the Court of First Instance, the General Terms and Conditions did not comply with a number of principles – proportionality, symmetry, transparency. There were also contract terms that did not comply with the principles of clear, comprehensible wording and itemization, according to the Court of First Instance.
The appellant financial institution appealed against the judgment at first instance, requesting that the judgment be reversed and the hearing suspended.
The plaintiff again requested that the court refer the matter to the Constitutional Court (Ab) and initiate a preliminary ruling procedure before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which was previously rejected by the Court of First Instance. He presented a judicial decision at the hearing and requested that the reasons given therein be taken into account.
The terms of the code of conduct were, according to the financial institution, in compliance with current legislation and fair. According to the appellant, the court overwrote the provisions of the law, failed to take due account of refinancing contracts, and erroneously disregarded the law on credit institutions.
It was a false argument that this type of lawsuit
The plaintiff’s legal representative explained that it was a false argument that this type of lawsuit was necessary in order to protect Hungarian citizens from tens of thousands of lawsuits, as it could have given rise to a final judgment by bringing a civil action.
In his oral supplement to the defense, the defendant’s Hungarian legal representative stated that he agreed with the court’s application of the law, that the judgment of the tribunal was factually and legally substantiated and that there was no need for the court to appeal to Ab and EB. When the plaintiff enclosed a court order requesting the court to take it into account, the defendant’s Hungarian legal representative responded that the court hearing the case was not bound by the decision of another court.