Blog » EU COURT RULED - STRENGHTENED CONSUMER PROTECTION IN CROSS BORDER DEBT RECOVERY
EU COURT RULED - STRENGHTENED CONSUMER PROTECTION IN CROSS BORDER DEBT RECOVERY
15 January 2020
Can the unfairness of cross-border claim be reviewed ex officio in case of consumer contracts in such a simplified procedure, like the European order for payment procedure? In our article, we analyse the recent judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Bondora case and its possible effects on cross-border debt recovery, covering also the Hungarian legal regulations.
In the case at hand, a company having its registered office in Estonia, the Bondora AS (“Bondora”) provided smaller amount of loans to Spanish private individuals, so these contracts were considered as consumer contracts. 
Bondora lodged an application for a European order for payment (“EOP”) against the non-paying Spanish consumers in their home state, Spain. However, instead conducting the former routine procedure, the Spanish courts, asked the Estonian company to provide further documents to examine the possible unfairness of the contractual terms contained in the consumer contracts.
The Estonian company objected against the preliminary review, referred to the provisions of the Spanish law, pursuant to which in a procedure for EOP, it is not necessary and possible to attach any documents in support of the claim.
European Court of Justice in Luxemburg had to decide two questions in the above case.
The first question was whether the EU law enables the authority competent for issuing the EOP, to examine the unfairness of the claims, from its own motion in advance.
When it comes to the second question, the EU Court had take a position whether the Spanish law, by precluding the submission of attachments together with the application in the EOP procedure, and therefore excluding the preliminary assessment of the unfairness, is compatible with the union law.
3. Judgement of the CJEU
The Court of Justice has already established in respect of the national order of payment procedures that in case of consumer contracts, unfair clauses shall be examined in advance, ex officio. In the Bondora case, the EU Court has now confirmed that the above principle shall be obviously applied in in case of the EOP procedure, which is a cross-border proceeding.
The EU Court emphasised in this context, that the creditor, who initiates the EOP procedure, has the opportunity to describe the details of its claims on the mandatory standard form, and the court can ask the creditor to complete the application, consequently to describe the details of the claims, too.
According to the EU Court, the unfairness of the claim shall be examined, consequently, the national law which excludes the possibility of that is contrary to the union law, therefore it shall not apply.
4. The effect of the Bondora judgement
Although, from consumer point-of view the Bondora judgement can be interpreted as another milestone of the European consumer protection, if we recall why the EU established the system of the EOP, it can be seen, that this judgement makes more difficult the collection of uncontested cross-border claims.
To declare the unfairness of a contractual term, it is not enough to examine only that particular condition, but all rights and obligations stipulated in the contract shall be taken into account by the authority issuing the EOP, which necessarily takes more time.
At the same time, the EOP procedure is not necessarily suitable to conduct a full evidentiary procedure, therefore the decision on unfairness may not necessarily be well-established and a court can review it during a litigation.
Consequently, due to the above judgement, the EOP procedure will become longer and more uncertain, therefore the question arises, whether it is better for creditors to start litigation directly, where the court can conduct a full evidentiary procedure. Since the devil is always in the details, this question can be decided only on a case-by-case basis.
5. The Hungarian regulation
In Hungary, contrary to more other European countries, it is not the court, but the notary public, who is entitled to issue an EOP, therefore, by virtue of the Bondora judgement, the notary public can decide on the unfairness of the claim against a Hungarian debtor.
In Hungarian EOP procedures, the question arises, how this new task can be reconciled with the traditional role of public notaries in Hungary? Until now, they conducted only a formal check in respect of the application for EOP, but from now on, they have to carry out a substantial examination and make a decision on the merits of the case, albeit they does not have dispute resolution function traditionally.
Furthermore, as the Hungarian regulation allows attaching annexes in limited cases in both the national and in the EOP procedure, it can be established, that legislative intervention is necessary to change the current status, which is contrary to the European union law.
By its judgement in Bondora case, the Court of Justice has significantly restricted the effectiveness of the EOP procedure in case of claims arising out of consumer contracts, therefore as a creditor, you have to prepare that the lawfulness of your claim can be already examined during this simplified procedure, which possibly makes the debt collection longer.
IS THE JUDGE BIASED BECAUSE OF UNFAVOURABLE JUDGMENT IN OTHER CASE?
Can a judge be disqualified from deciding the legal dispute on the grounds of bias if he has delivered a judgment unfavourable to the plaintiff in another case? Can a court be biased if the plaintiff has "challenged" a previous decision of the court before the European Court of Human Rights? In this article, we answer these questions by analysing a recent judgment of the Hungarian Supreme Court.Read more »
CAN INCOMPATIBLE WORKPLACE BEHAVIOUR BE A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IN HUNGARY?
Refusal of employer 's instructions, unjustified absence, intentional damage: some cases where the justification for dismissing an employee is relatively easy to determine. What happens, however, if the employee does not commit a severe breach of duty similar to the one above, but his or her colleagues consider him incompatible, with whom it is impossible to cooperate, or even afraid of him or her. Can dismissal be justified by behaviour that is incompatible with others and creates disharmony in the working environment? In our article, we seek the answer to this question in the light of Hungarian judicial practice.Read more »
CAN A JUDICIAL ERROR CREATE HUNGARIAN JURISDICTION DESPITE A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE ABROAD?
Can a defendant, domiciled abroad, be sued in Hungary under the Brussels I Regulation in the event of defective performance of an international sales contract if the place of performance is abroad? Can the jurisdiction of a Hungarian court be established based on the fact that the lower court expressly established its jurisdiction at the beginning of the litigation? How is the EXW clause to be interpreted within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation? In our article, we analyse the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Hungary.Read more »