The Metropolitan Court is also appealing to the Constitutional Court (AB) in its foreign currency loan lawsuit against Good Finance Ingatlanlízing Zrt.
The Constitutional Court shall rule on the matter within 90 days
In its action, Good Finance Ingatlanlízing Zrt. Listed the arguments already expressed in the foreign currency loan litigation. A spokesman for the financial institution commented at the hearing: “This is the type of legal solution as described in Act XXXVIII of 2014. the law passed goes beyond this matter.
If this can be done with the banking sector, it can be done tomorrow with any other sector that is under the guise of interpretation of the law, “requiring the court, for ten years, to review only compliance with a new law.
A representative of the defendant’s Hungarian state argued that since 2011, a series of lawsuits have been filed in which debtors have challenged unilateral contract changes by credit institutions; the judges interpreted the relevant rule of the Civil Code – the general clause on unfair terms of contract – in different ways, which required a uniform interpretation of the Curia. Parliament has enacted this decision of the Mansion.
However, this did not create a new rule
merely clarifying previous legal issues and explaining a general principle, so there is no retroactive effect.
However, the judge stated in the oral justification of the order staying the proceedings that the law violated the principle of non-retroactivity and the requirement of legal certainty. In addition, it does not meet the requirement of normative clarity and unnecessarily restricts procedural rights.
He explained that it is against the parties’ self-determination that the law modifies foreign currency-denominated contracts, including contracts that have already been executed. At most, this could be done for the future, as required by law in the case of a court modification of a contract.
The legislator also refers to the 2008 economic and financial crisis as justifying intervention in legal relationships. It is therefore incomprehensible why he would modify the contracts with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, he said.
It stated that the law restricts the right to a fair trial. It sets tight deadlines for all participants in the proceedings, including the court.
Thus, the conditions for the discovery of material justice are not assured
The law’s procedural rules, including the absence of any remedy or suspension of litigation, violate the right to equality of arms because they favor the defendant, the court found.
The law does not make it clear which contracts are considered foreign currency contracts, and many other provisions are inaccurate and ambiguous. Several of its formulations raise interpretation problems. These anomalies violate the requirement of enlightenment and thus the rule of law.
The court found that there was insufficient preparation time, thus violating the principle of legal certainty. He stressed that the 30-day time limit for initiating proceedings is already in force. The difference is preparing for the law, which has one or eight days, which is unrealistically short.
Finally, the law also violates the right to appeal by shortening the time limits for lodging appeals and appeals.
The court ruled that it would have been a constitutional solution if the competent body of the state had filed a lawsuit in the public interest against financial institutions under the existing regulations – the old Civil Code and a government decree adopted in 1999.
Dozens of financial institutions filed lawsuits against the Hungarian state after the adoption of the law on foreign currency loans.