At the hearing of the Metropolitan Court of Justice on Friday, October 21, it postponed the announcement of the second-instance judgment in the UnliCredit Leasing Hungary Zrt.
The bank has filed a lawsuit against the Hungarian state for unfair terms in its general terms and conditions.
At first instance, the Metropolitan Court dismissed the claimant’s claim against the bank. In its appeal, it reiterated its request that the court refer the matter to the Constitutional Court or request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice.
Neither of those two applications was ordered by the court at Friday’s hearing.
The court first presented the judgment of the Metropolitan Court.
The General Court rejected the rebuttal of the presumption of law in all of the General Terms and Conditions, which are subject to the law underlying the dispute. The law presupposes that unilateral contract modification by a financial institution is unfair. This assumption can be rebutted in a lawsuit against the Hungarian State as a defendant.
The court of first instance rejected the applicant’s leasing company requesting an expert in the case. He also refused to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The former was rejected by the Tribunal because it considered that the law underlying the lawsuit was not unconstitutional, whereas the questions put to the European Court did not seek to interpret the law, but claimed that Hungarian law did not comply with EU law.
In its appeal, the applicant leasing company sought the setting aside of the judgment at first instance and the repetition of the procedure at first instance because it considered that its contractual terms were fair.
He further requested that the Tribunal refer the matter to the Constitutional Court or request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice.
The defendant’s Hungarian legal representative requested that the judgment at first instance be supplemented, as the requirement of symmetry and proportionality had not been fully examined by the Tribunal. In addition, he considered it unnecessary to appeal to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice.
The lawyer for the plaintiff leasing company asked the court to reduce the salary requested by the lawyer for the defendant state, which was stated in the net at $ 3 million 535,000. Because the legal representative represents several companies in the UnitCredit Group, the work is repeated, owing to the consistency of the written materials. In addition, he again requested that the court appoint an expert for the case.
After the parties’ legal representatives completed their written submissions, the court closed the hearing and delayed the delivery of the decision until October 21 (MTI).