Forint Loans – Good Finance Bank Loses to the State on Second Ground

Forint Loans – Good Finance Bank Loses to the State on Second Ground

On Tuesday, the Metropolitan Court of Appeal ruled against Good Finance Commercial Bank’s claim that the credit institution sought a declaration of fairness in its General Terms and Conditions.

The panel shared the judgment of the Metropolitan Court at first instance: the plaintiff’s bank’s contractual terms were unfair.
The court of second instance also considered the bank’s request for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice to be unfounded.

In addition to the contractual terms of Good Finance’s retail mortgage loans

the lawsuit also included the terms of E-bank Bank’s personal loans, since Good Finance is the legal successor of the former.
At the beginning of the trial, the court described in detail the points of the attached General Terms and Conditions at issue. Because the terms and conditions changed frequently, many variations were described.

The presentation of the judgment at first instance followed a change in the general terms and conditions, but often contained the same wording. For example, the lists that allow the bank to unilaterally change interest and costs are exemplary. The applicant itself can bring about a change in some of them.

Generally defined conditions that increase the burden on the consumer

Are unsuitable for control and accountability. And the consumer is not in a position to assess how the change is changing his payment burden.
However, the high level of financial and capital market turmoil, which is classified as force majeure, is unacceptable because it does not state the limit from which it can be considered high. However, the customer’s right to terminate is not a realistic alternative, as he will then have to repay the outstanding capital in one sum.

The lawyer for the applicant bank added at the hearing

When granting a loan, the bank is paying in advance and the customer is performing for a long time. If the customer terminates the contract, the bank is in need of protection.
At the hearing, the legal representative of the defendant State applied for the judgment at first instance to be upheld.
After deliberation, the panel announced its decision in which it upheld the Court of First Instance’s rejection of the unfair terms of the Good Finance Bank.