Foreign currency loans – Good Finance claim dismissed by court, savings decision to be decided later
On Tuesday, the Budapest Metropolitan Court rejected Goodbank Hungary Zrt’s claim against the Hungarian state for foreign currency loans, while Good Finance Savings Cooperative v. Hungarian State deferred the decision until September 30.
In a ruling on Tuesday, the judge explained that the contractual terms used by Goodbank did not comply with, for example, the principles of objectivity, effectiveness and proportionality.
Goodbank’s claim was completely unfounded
And that he did not agree with the plaintiff’s argument that the XXXVIII.
The adoption of a law of the Republic of Lithuania is considered to be retroactive legislation.
The judge also stated that the 7 principles laid down in the law are equivalent and cumulative, ie all the general terms and conditions (asf) involved in the litigation must be complied with.
At the same time, the judge reduced the litigation costs by a net amount of HUF 1,891 million plus VAT.
On Tuesday morning, the Metropolitan General Court also heard the claim filed by the Savings Co-operative of Nagykáta and its Region against the Hungarian state.
The case was postponed until September 30
The legal representative of the Savings Co-operative suspended the proceedings and requested that the Tribunal apply to the Constitutional Court (Ab). They also requested that a witness be heard, but this was not upheld by the court.
The legal representative of the Good Finance Savings Cooperative emphasized that they always acted in accordance with the applicable laws and that the Act XXXVIII of 2014 Retrospective legislation has been introduced by law, so we have to turn to Ab.
The defendant’s Hungarian legal representative called the Savings Co-operative’s claim “sporadic”, stating that the plaintiff also wanted to investigate contractual terms not covered by the Consumer Credit Act. In response, the Savings Cooperative’s legal representative withdrew from the claim at some points.
The legal representative of the Hungarian State explained
That there was no need to hear a witness because there was no need to investigate, as the applicant had suggested, how each of the contracts had been concluded with the savings cooperative.
The tribunal must test the fairness of the terms of the contract – the lawyer argued.
The judge dismissed the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed and for Ab to seek leave, and the trial was adjourned and the judgment of the first instance court was set for September 30.