{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-679-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-679-24)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-02","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:f6410a","proof":"sha256:6810affbe9b0be633a4e32a59d305682ba932d463cda532fd3602a8d62796f49","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-679-24","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Provisional text","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"19 March 2026 ( * )","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6"]},{"title":"HL","paragraphs":["para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"European Union law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3         The tenth recital of Directive 93/13 states:","paragraphs":["para_28"]},{"title":"4         Article 1(1) of that directive is worded as follows:","paragraphs":["para_30"]},{"title":"5         Under point (b) of Article 2 of that directive:","paragraphs":["para_32","para_33","para_34"]},{"title":"6         Article 3(1) of that directive provides:","paragraphs":["para_36"]},{"title":"7         Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13 states:","paragraphs":["para_38"]},{"title":"8         Article 6(1) of that directive provides:","paragraphs":["para_40"]},{"title":"9         Article 7(1) of that directive provides:","paragraphs":["para_42"]},{"title":"Hungarian law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The previous Civil Code","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46"]},{"title":"11       Under Paragraph 234(1) of the previous Civil Code:","paragraphs":["para_48"]},{"title":"12       Paragraph 237 of that code was worded as follows:","paragraphs":["para_50","para_51","para_52"]},{"title":"13       Under Paragraph 321 of that code:","paragraphs":["para_54","para_55"]},{"title":"14       Paragraph 324 of that code stated:","paragraphs":["para_57","para_58","para_59"]},{"title":"15       Under Paragraph 326 of the previous Civil Code:","paragraphs":["para_61","para_62"]},{"title":"16       Paragraph 327 of that code provided:","paragraphs":["para_64","para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"The DH1 Law","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73"]},{"title":"The DH2 Law","paragraphs":["para_75","para_76"]},{"title":"19       Under Paragraph 37(1) of that law:","paragraphs":["para_78"]},{"title":"National case-law","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96"]},{"title":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":["para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121"]},{"title":"The jurisdiction of the Court","paragraphs":["para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131"]},{"title":"Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":["para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139"]},{"title":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The first question","paragraphs":["para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157"]},{"title":"The second and third questions","paragraphs":["para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177"]},{"title":"The fourth question","paragraphs":["para_179"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_181"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"19 March 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Loan agreement denominated in foreign currency – Term placing the exchange rate risk on the consumer – Effects of a finding that the term is unfair – Action for restitution of the sums paid pursuant to the unfair term – Starting point of the limitation period for an action for restitution – Resumption of the limitation period after a period of suspension )","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑679/24,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), made by decision of 9 October 2024, received at the Court on 15 October 2024, in the proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"HL","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"UniCredit Bank Zrt.,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Momentum Credit Zrt.,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"composed of M. Condinanzi (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen and R. Frendo, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Advocate General: A. Rantos,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"–        UniCredit Bank Zrt., by Z. Lajer, ügyvéd,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"–        the Hungarian Government, by D. Csoknyai and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"–        the European Commission, by P. Kienapfel and Zs. Teleki, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 1 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"2         The request has been made in proceedings between HL, a consumer, and UniCredit Bank Zrt. and Momentum Credit Zrt., two Hungarian financial institutions, concerning the request made by HL seeking, first, a finding of the invalidity of the loan agreement concluded with UniCredit Bank, on the ground that that agreement contains an unfair term and, secondly, the maintenance of the legal effects of that agreement with the exception of that term.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"3         The tenth recital of Directive 93/13 states:","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"‘Whereas more effective protection of the consumer can be achieved by adopting uniform rules of law in the matter of unfair terms; …’","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"4         Article 1(1) of that directive is worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"‘The purpose of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer.’","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"5         Under point (b) of Article 2 of that directive:","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"‘For the purposes of this Directive:","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"(b) “consumer” means any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession’.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"6         Article 3(1) of that directive provides:","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.’","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"7         Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13 states:","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"‘Without prejudice to Article 7, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.’","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"8         Article 6(1) of that directive provides:","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"‘Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms.’","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"9         Article 7(1) of that directive provides:","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"‘Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers.’","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Hungarian law","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"The previous Civil Code","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"10       Paragraph 209(1) of the Polgári Törvénykönyvről szóló 1959. évi IV. törvény (Law No IV of 1959 establishing the Civil Code), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the previous Civil Code’), provided:","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"‘Any standard contract term or any term of a consumer contract which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, in breach of the obligation to act in good faith and fairly, it unilaterally and unjustifiably establishes the contractual rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the party other than the one imposing the contractual term in question.’","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"11       Under Paragraph 234(1) of the previous Civil Code:","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"‘Except in cases provided for by law, any person may rely on the invalidity of a void contract, without there being any time limit for doing so. There is no special procedure for declaring a contract invalid.’","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"12       Paragraph 237 of that code was worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"‘1.      If a contract is invalid, the situation prevailing prior to the conclusion of that contract shall be restored.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"2.      If it is impossible to restore the situation prevailing prior to the conclusion of the contract, the court may declare the contract applicable until it has given a ruling. An invalid contract may be declared valid if the cause of invalidity can be removed, in particular by eliminating the di …","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"13       Under Paragraph 321 of that code:","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"‘1.      Anyone possessing a right to terminate a contract, either as a result of that contract or by operation of the law, may exercise that right by means of a declaration made to the other party. Such termination ends the effects of the contract.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"2.      If termination is not immediate, the contract remains in effect until the expiry of the contractual or statutory notice period.’","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"14       Paragraph 324 of that code stated:","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"‘1.      Unless otherwise provided, claims are time-barred after five years.","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"2.      If the principal claim is time-barred, all ancillary claims are also time-barred. Ancillary claims being time-barred does not affect the principal claim.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"15       Under Paragraph 326 of the previous Civil Code:","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"‘1.      The limitation period shall begin to run on the day on which the claim becomes due.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"2.      Where a person entitled to bring a claim is prevented from doing so for a justifiable reason, the limitation period is ‘suspended’ and the claim may be brought within one year – or within three months, if the limitation period is one year or less – from the time when the obstacle is removed, …","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"16       Paragraph 327 of that code provided:","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"‘1.      The limitation period is interrupted when a written request for performance of an obligation is made to the person owing it, when a claim is brought before the courts, when the obligation in question is modified by agreement (including when this is done by means of a transaction) and, lastly, when the person owing performance acknowledges his or her obligation.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"2.      The limitation period shall resume on the day on which the limitation period was interrupted or on the date on which the proceedings which interrupted that period are fully concluded.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"The DH1 Law","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"17       Under Paragraph 1 of the Kúriának a pénzügyi intézmények fogyasztói kölcsönszerződéseire vonatkozó jogegységi határozatával kapcsolatos egyes kérdések rendezéséről szóló 2014. évi XXXVIII. törvény (Law No XXXVIII of 2014 on specific matters relating to the decision of the Kúria (Supreme Cou …","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"‘1.      The present law applies to loan agreements concluded with consumers between 1 May 2004 and the date of its entry into force. For the purposes of the present law, “loan agreements concluded with consumers” covers any credit or loan agreement or any financial leasing agreement denominated in …","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"6.      For the purposes of claims arising under loan agreements concluded with consumers, the provisions of [the previous Civil Code] relating to limitation periods must be interpreted as meaning that those claims are not time-barred so long as the contract remains in effect, since the limitation period begins to run only from the day on which the contract is terminated.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"7.      The limitation period for the claims referred to in subparagraph 6 is suspended from the date of entry into force of the present law until the date set in a separate law under Paragraph 3(5) and Paragraph 4(3).","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"The DH2 Law","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"18       Paragraph 9 of the Kúriának a pénzügyi intézmények fogyasztói kölcsönszerződéseire vonatkozó jogegységi határozatával kapcsolatos egyes kérdések rendezéséről szóló 2014. évi XXXVIII. törvényben rögzített elszámolás szabályairól és egyes egyéb rendelkezésekről szóló 2014. évi XL. törvény (La …","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"‘The limitation period for claims arising under the agreements concluded with consumers referred to in Paragraph 1(7) of [the DH1 Law] is suspended until the date on which the consumer is notified of the settlement provided for by the present law or until 31 December 2015.’","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"19       Under Paragraph 37(1) of that law:","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"‘In relation to contracts falling within the scope of the present law, the parties may apply to the court for a declaration of invalidity of the contract or of specific terms thereof (“partial invalidity”) – irrespective of the ground for such invalidity – only if they also request determination of …","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"National case-law","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"20       In accordance with 1/2010. (VI. 28.) PK (Legfelsőbb Bíróság Polgári Kollégiuma) vélemény az érvénytelenség jogkövetkezményeiről (Opinion No 1/2010 (VI. 28.) of the Mixed Civil Chamber of the Legfelsőbb Bíróság (Supreme Court, Hungary) on the legal consequences of invalidity (‘Opinion 1/2010’)):","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"‘…","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"2.      The general legal consequence of invalidity is that that transaction cannot create rights; that is, the legal effects intended by the parties cannot be achieved. That is the legal consequence which the court must apply of its own motion in the case of nullity and which, apart from any except …","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Both in the case of nullity and where a contract is capable of being annulled, the court will only apply the other legal consequences of invalidity (Paragraph 237 of [the previous Civil Code]) at the request of a party and respecting the limits as regards limitation periods and adverse possession.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"3.      The restoration of the original situation may only be effected in kind. Where one of the parties is only able to return the thing received by means of the payment of its equivalent in money, that does not constitute restoration of the original situation.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"21       The 2/2014. számú PJE [Polgári jogegységi] határozat [Decision 2/2014 of the Kúria (Supreme Court) of 16 June 2014 on the consistent interpretation of the provisions of civil law], provides:","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"‘… In the event that the terms of the contract and the information provided by the financial institution clearly enabled a given consumer – considered to be an “average consumer” – to understand that he or she alone was assuming the exchange rate risk without limit and that changes to the exchange rate detrimental to him or her were not subject to any upper limit, that clause cannot be held to be unfair under Paragraph 209(5) of the previous Civil Code.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Therefore, the fact that the consumer received the information required by law and signed the declaration that he or she was aware of the risks must be interpreted, until proven otherwise, as meaning that it was or should have been clear and comprehensible to the consumer that the exchange rate risk lay with him or her alone and without limit. It is for the financial institution to prove that the consumer was informed in this manner.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"However, if the term providing for the assumption of an unlimited exchange rate risk was not clearly and comprehensibly discernible by the consumer through the fault of the financial institution, the conditions for finding that the contract is unfair are met.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"It is for the consumer to prove that the information was inadequate and that, consequently, the drafting of the contractual term relating to the exchange rate risk was not clear and comprehensible to him or her.’","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"22       Judgment Gfv.VI.30.382/2023/3 of the Kúria (Supreme Court), of 14 February 2024, states:","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"‘26.      The Kúria (Supreme Court) holds that, even if, under Paragraph 234(1) of the previous Civil Code and except in cases provided for by law, any person may rely on the invalidity of a void contract, without there being any time limit for doing so and there is no special procedure for declarin …","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"27.      Under the specific legislation applicable to the loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency in question, namely Paragraph 1(6) of the DH1 Law, the starting point of the limitation period corresponds to the end of the contract and not to the possibility of the person entitled to bring …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"40.      Where the question whether an action is time-barred is raised, it shall be examined before the substance of the claim, since a request for performance which is time-barred cannot be made in court. The limitation period for claims arising under agreements concluded with consumers runs unifor …","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"23       On 14 February 2008, HL concluded with UniCredit Bank a mortgage loan agreement denominated in Swiss francs (CHF), for a sum corresponding to 5 100 000 Hungarian forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 12 750), to be repaid over a period of 360 months, in Hungarian forint.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"24       That agreement contained a term under which the risk associated with an appreciation of the foreign currency against the Hungarian forint was placed entirely on the consumer (‘the term relating to the exchange rate risk’).","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"25       On 17 May 2012, UniCredit Bank terminated the loan agreement on the basis of the late payment of the monthly instalments due since 15 November 2011.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"26       On 28 December 2012, UniCredit Bank obtained an order for performance on the basis of which it brought enforcement proceedings against HL, which are still ongoing. On 17 March 2017, UniCredit Bank assigned its claim arising under the loan agreement to Momentum Credit.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"27       On 4 April 2023, HL, before the court of first instance having jurisdiction, sought to obtain, on account of the failure of the bank to fulfil its obligation of information and the insufficient nature of the information provided concerning the exchange rate risk, a finding of the invalidity …","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"28       In the alternative, HL requested that that court find the loan agreement invalid and, in respect of the legal consequences of that finding, declare that that agreement is effective only until the date of delivery of the judgment to be adopted, in accordance with Paragraph 37(1) of the DH2 Law.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"29       UniCredit Bank and Momentum Credit raised an objection that HL’s action was time-barred and contended that the action should be dismissed.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"30       The court of first instance dismissed HL’s action on the ground that it was time-barred. It did not rule on the invalidity of the agreement, finding that, in any event, the request of the interested party that the court determine the legal consequences of invalidity was time-barred.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"31       HL brought an appeal against the judgment at first instance before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), which is the referring court, claiming in particular that the loan agreement at issue is invalid on account of the insufficient nature of the information provided by t …","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"32       UniCredit Bank and Momentum Credit contended that the judgment at first instance should be upheld.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"33       The referring court states that it is called upon to determine what should happen to a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, where a term of that agreement, which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer alone, is held to be unfair because that consumer was insufficiently informed of the nature of that risk, and where the removal of that term, which defines the main subject matter of that agreement, results in the invalidity of the entire agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"34       It specifies that it harbours doubts as to how it should calculate the limitation period which applies to the action by which the consumer requests the court to determine the legal consequences of the invalidity of the loan agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"35       The referring court states that, under Hungarian law, in particular Paragraph 1(6) of the DH1 Law, the limitation period for claims arising under an agreement concluded with a consumer starts to run, in principle, from the date on which the agreement is terminated.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"36       In that respect, the court of first instance, by relying on paragraph 2 of Opinion 1/2010 and on judgment Gfv.VI.30.382/2023/3 of the Kúria (Supreme Court), of 14 February 2024, found, first, that the request brought by HL that the court determine the legal consequences of the invalidity of …","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"37       Secondly, as regards the starting point of the limitation period for that request, it found that it had begun to run on the date on which the loan agreement was concluded since the causes of invalidity relied upon already existed from the time it was drawn up. More specifically, the court o …","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"38       As regards the suspension of the limitation period, the referring court notes that, in the judgment at first instance, it is stated that that suspension lasts only for the period defined in Paragraph 1(7) of the DH1 Law and Paragraph 9 of the DH2 Law, namely until the date on which the cons …","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"39       The referring court notes that, according to the court of first instance, there was no interruption of the limitation period since, although Paragraph 1(6) of the DH1 Law had to be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period applied to claims deriving from the invalidity of an agreeme …","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"40       The referring court itself finds that, in a situation such as the one in the main proceedings where the unfair term concerns the main subject matter of the loan agreement and brings about the invalidity of the whole agreement, that time limit of five years runs from 14 February 2008, the da …","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"41       It is unsure, consequently, whether, in the light of Decision 2/2014 of 16 June 2014 of the Kúria (Supreme Court) and of the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the level of information which must be provided by the bank to the consumer, that limitation period is sufficient to enable the consumer to become aware of the unfairness of that term and to assert his or her rights, when the starting point is the day on which the agreement was concluded.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"42       In those circumstances, the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"‘(1)      Are the objectives laid down in Articles 1 and 7 of [Directive 93/13] achieved where, in the case of a claim made by a consumer in proceedings brought by that consumer and based on the unfair nature of the main subject matter of a loan agreement concluded with the consumer ([concerning] in …","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"(2)      Are the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union on limitation periods for asserting a consumer’s claims, and the decisions of the Kúria (Supreme Court …)[, which follow those decisions of the Court of Justice and bind the Hungarian courts (even if only as guidelines which pu …","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"(3)      In addition to the date on which the decisions referred to in the second question were given, should the point in time when the consumer became aware of those decisions be taken as the starting point of the limitation period or should this be taken as the end of the period – which began with the conclusion of the [agreement] – during which the limitation period [was] suspended?","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"(4)      In the case of a consumer’s claim based on the unfair nature of the main subject matter of an agreement, if the limitation period begins to run at the time when the agreement is concluded, is it justified to grant the consumer the possibility of asserting his or her claim until the end of the term of the agreement concluded by that consumer, where the term of the agreement exceeds the limitation period of five years currently in force?’","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"The jurisdiction of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"43       UniCredit Bank contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred since, by those questions, the referring court does not ask the Court to interpret a provision of EU law. In its view, since Directive 93/13 does not contain any rule on limitation periods, the questions concern, in fact, the interpretation of relevant national civil law rules, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Member States.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"44       In that regard, it should be noted that the argument made by UniCredit Bank is based on the incorrect premiss that the exercise by the Member States of their right to define the detailed rules under which a term contained in an agreement is found to be unfair and the specific legal effects …","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"45       The Court has already held that the regulation by national law of the protection guaranteed to consumers by Directive 93/13 may not alter the scope and, therefore, the substance of that protection and thus affect the strengthening of the effectiveness of that protection by the adoption of u …","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"46       From that point of view, it must be recalled that the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument for cooperation between the Court and the national courts by means of which the Court provides national courts with the criteria of interpretation of EU law which they need in o …","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"47       In addition, in the context of the procedure established by Article 267 TFEU, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of provisions of national laws or regulations or on their conformity with EU law. It is settled case-law that, in a request for a preliminary ruling purs …","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"48       In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the referring court harbours doubts as to how it should calculate the limitation period of five years which applies to the action by which the consumer requests that the national court determine the legal consequences of the invalidity of the loan agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"49       In that respect, the referring court asks, in essence, the Court whether Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding or not precluding an interpretation of national law according to which that limitation period of five-years laid down by the previous Civil Code runs from the date on w …","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"50       Accordingly, it cannot be accepted that the request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Hungarian law and, therefore, UniCredit Bank’s argument alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Court must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"51       It follows from the foregoing that the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the request for a preliminary ruling.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"52       UniCredit Bank also disputes the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling on the ground that, first, the referring court has not shown that there is a link between Hungarian law and EU law. Secondly, it contends that the legal issues underlying the questions submitted for a pre …","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"53       According to settled case-law, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the ca …","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"54       It follows that questions relating to EU law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court for a preliminary ruling only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual fac …","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"55       In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the interpretation of EU law sought by the referring court appears necessary for the purpose of ruling on the dispute before it.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"56       The referring court expresses doubt as to how to calculate the limitation period, in particular in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to Directive 93/13 and, more specifically, as to the level of information which the bank must ensure the consumer has regarding the exchange rate risk.","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"57       Furthermore, as regards the references made by the referring court to the case-law of the Kúria (Supreme Court), it is not for the Court, in the context of the judicial cooperation established in Article 267 TFEU, to call back into question or to verify the accuracy of the interpretation of …","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"58       It follows that the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible.","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"The first question","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"59       By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 1 and 7 of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national law according to which, where a loan agreement is invalid an …","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"60       As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, under Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13, the purpose of that directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"61       In that context, Article 7(1) of that directive requires Member States to provide adequate and effective means of preventing the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"62       According to settled case-law, in the absence of EU rules on the matter, it is for the national legal order of each Member State, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to establish procedural rules for actions intended to safeguard the rights that individuals derive from …","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"63       As regards the principle of effectiveness, which is the only principle at issue in the present proceedings, it should be noted that every case in which the question arises as to whether a national procedural provision makes the application of EU law impossible or excessively difficult must …","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"64       In addition, the Court has stated that the obligation on the Member States to ensure the effectiveness of the rights that individuals derive from EU law, particularly the rights deriving from Directive 93/13, implies a requirement for effective judicial protection, also guaranteed by Articl …","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"65       As regards the application of a limitation period to a claim brought by a consumer for repayment of sums paid but not due, based on the unfair nature of a contractual term, for the purposes of Directive 93/13, the Court has confirmed on several occasions that Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) o …","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"66       Accordingly, it must be held that the application of a limitation period to claims for restitution brought by consumers in order to enforce rights which they derive from Directive 93/13 is not, in itself, contrary to the principle of effectiveness, provided that its application does not mak …","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"67       As regards the analysis of the characteristics of a limitation period such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the Court has stated that that analysis must cover the duration of the limitation period and the detailed rules for its application, including the mechanism adopted to start the period running (judgment of 10 June 2021, BNP Paribas Personal Finance , C‑776/19 to C‑782/19, EU:C:2021:470, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"68       As regards the starting point of the limitation period, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the application of a five-year limitation period that begins to run from the conclusion of the agreement at issue, in so far as it means that the consumer may seek the refund of paymen …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"69       Accordingly, the date of conclusion of the agreement containing the unfair term cannot, as such, constitute the starting point of the limitation period (judgment of 25 April 2024, Caixabank (Limitation period) , C‑484/21, EU:C:2024:360, paragraph 31).","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"70       In that regard, it is necessary to take account of the weaker position of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier as regards both bargaining power and level of knowledge, which leads the consumer to accept terms drawn up in advance by the seller or supplier, without being able to infl …","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"71       It should also be borne in mind that the Court has held that loan agreements, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are generally performed over long periods of time and, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that, at least in respect of some of the payments made, the limitation period …","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"72       Therefore, as regards the starting point of the limitation period at issue in the main proceedings, there is a non-negligible risk that, in view of the way in which that period is determined by national case-law, the consumer will not be able to assert his or her rights under Directive 93/13 effectively.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"73       As is apparent from the order for reference, if the judicial interpretation of national law, which led the court of first instance to set the dies a quo of the limitation period at the date on which the loan agreement was concluded between UniCredit Bank and HL, namely 14 February 2008, had …","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"74       In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 1(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national law according to which, w …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"The second and third questions","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"75       By its second and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the date on which the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of that directive or the date on which the natio …","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"76       In order to provide the referring court with a useful answer to the questions referred, and in the light of the background to the dispute as described in the order for reference, it is appropriate to limit the analysis solely to a situation in which a consumer submits a claim with a view to enforcing the restitutory effects stemming from a finding that a contractual term is unfair.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"77       It should be borne in mind that, in order in particular to ensure effective protection of the rights which the consumer derives from Directive 93/13, he or she must be able to raise, at any time, the unfairness of a contractual term not only as a means of defence, but also in order to obtai …","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"78       That being the case, the Court has ruled that the fixing of the starting point of the limitation period for an action for restitution brought by a consumer, on the basis of an unfair contractual term, at the date on which the national court of last instance delivered judgments declaring sta …","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"79       Furthermore, in the absence of an obligation of information in that regard on the part of the seller or supplier, it cannot be assumed that the consumer may reasonably be aware of the fact that a term contained in his or her agreement is equivalent in scope to a term that has been found to …","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"80       In that regard, it must be recalled that it is apparent from the wording of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13 that the protection afforded by that directive depends on the purposes for which a natural person is acting, that is to say, those which are outside his or her trade, business or prof …","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"81       In addition, it should be noted that such national case-law is not necessarily such as to make it possible automatically to declare unfair all terms of that type included in all agreements between a seller or supplier and a consumer in that Member State. Where a standard term has been decla …","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"82       It follows from those considerations that an average consumer who is reasonably observant and circumspect cannot be required not only to keep himself or herself regularly informed, on his or her own initiative, of decisions of the national court of last instance relating to standard terms c …","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"83       Accordingly, Directive 93/13 precludes that, in order to determine the starting point of the limitation period for the consumer’s action for restitution of sums unduly paid under an unfair contractual term, the existence of national case-law – even if it is well established – relating to th …","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"84       The reasons set out in paragraphs 78 and 81 above, according to which the existence of judgments issued by a national court of last instance, which find certain standard terms to be unfair, cannot, in itself, mean that a consumer is or may reasonably be aware of the unfairness of a similar …","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"85       In that respect, it should be noted that, although preliminary rulings of the Court on the interpretation of EU law are published in such a manner as to facilitate access to them, including for consumers, the Court does not determine whether particular terms are unfair and consistently leav …","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"86       However, a judicial decision which has the force of res judicata , finding that a contractual term is unfair, and which is duly notified to the consumer concerned, in accordance with the applicable national rules, as an addressee of that decision, may constitute the starting point of the li …","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"87       That being the case, it must be stated that, although Directive 93/13 precludes the limitation period for an action for restitution of the sums paid by a consumer pursuant to an unfair contractual term from beginning to run irrespective of whether that consumer was or could reasonably have …","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"88       In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that there is no final judicial decision finding that the term relating to the exchange rate risk is unfair and invalid.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"89       In those circumstances, even assuming that HL had been aware of the relevant decisions of the Kúria (Supreme Court) or the judgments of the Court of Justice, neither the date on which those decisions or judgments were handed down nor the day on which HL actually became aware of them could constitute the starting point of the limitation period.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"90       It is, if necessary, for the referring court to ascertain whether UniCredit Bank and Momentum Credit have produced evidence that HL had been or could reasonably have been aware of the unfairness of the term relating to the exchange rate risk (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 April 2024, Banco Santander (Point from which the limitation period starts to run) , C‑561/21, EU:C:2024:362, paragraph 38).","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"91       Lastly, as regards the question relating to the resumption of the limitation period following its suspension, it should be noted that the suspension of a limitation period is intended to ensure that that period, the purpose of which is specifically to penalise the inaction of a person posse …","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"92       It follows that the resumption of the limitation period after a period of suspension must be subject to the same guarantees as those laid down in respect of the determination of the dies a quo of that limitation period.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"93       In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second and third questions is that Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the date on which the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of that directive or the date on which the national court of last instance …","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"The fourth question","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"94       In the light of the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the fourth question.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"95       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"1.       Article 1(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness,","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national law according to which, where a loan agreement is invalid and cannot continue in existence without the unfair term on the ground that that term relates to the main subject matter of the agreement, the consumer can rely, in court …","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"2.       Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the date on which the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of that directive or the date on which the national court of last instance ruled on the unfairness of terms included in agreements concluded with consumers from being used to …","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: Hungarian.","paragraph_id":"para_187"}],"word_count":10337,"cites":["C-472/20","C-609/19","C-776/19","C-782/19","C-28/22","C-140/22","C-107/23","C-436/23","C-80/21","C-82/21","C-484/21","C-810/21","C-813/21","C-224/19","C-259/19","C-561/21"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"e3773e30773e75db52c650a0bc391b808807f827868aae28d3a74eed6013bb76","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0679","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T03:25:57.314+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-679-24","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-679-24","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-679-24","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-679-24","verification":{"stored_sha256":"e3773e30773e75db52c650a0bc391b808807f827868aae28d3a74eed6013bb76","recomputed_sha256":"e3773e30773e75db52c650a0bc391b808807f827868aae28d3a74eed6013bb76","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-02T23:33:39.888Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-679-24","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":16,"word_count":10337,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:6810affbe9b0be633a4e32a59d305682ba932d463cda532fd3602a8d62796f49","version":"legal-2026-11-02","expires":"2026-11-03T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-02+legal-2026-11-02+2026-11-02T16:22:18","content_hash":"sha256:6810affbe9b0be633a4e32a59d305682ba932d463cda532fd3602a8d62796f49","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T00:33:40.230Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-679-24","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-679-24"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-679-24"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-679-24"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-679-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-34fdcde61cbc131422e27bd1b239dd0e","response_hash":"sha256:6810affbe9b0be633a4e32a59d305682ba932d463cda532fd3602a8d62796f49"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-02T23:33:40.499Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-679-24&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":15916}}