No colouring outside the lines for national courts (exchange rate risk in consumer loan contracts) - CJEU in AxFina Hungary (C-705/21)

On April 27th the CJEU issued another judgment in the saga of consumer loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, AxFina Hungary (C-705/21). It discussed further consequences, pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 UCTD, of finding unfair such terms that place the exchange risk on the consumer, when the loan is denominated in a foreign currency, but consumers repay it in the national currency.

This case concerned a smaller consumer law (ca 7k Euro) taken out to purchase a vehicle and repayable over 10 years. The loan was denominated in Swiss francs and repayable in Hungarian forint. Hungarian court declared invalidity of this loan contract on the basis of the unfairness of the term imposing the exchange rate risk on consumers. On appeal the referral was made to assess the compliance with EU consumer law of current Hungarian practices regarding unfair terms in consumer loan contracts. Namely, as paras 17-19 explains, following Hungarian Supreme Court's non-binding position, Hungarian case law tended to declare consumer loan contracts with unfair terms on exchange rate risk 'temporarily applicable' - until the date the judgment was issued. This means that the contract is terminated for the future, but not seen as having been invalid in the past. When removing 'the cause of the invalidity' courts would either convert the loan into Hungarian forints (removing entire exchange risk) or set a ceiling on the exchange rate risk (removing part of exchange risk). 

Declaring loan contracts valid and amending their terms: Not a default

The CJEU is clear in condemning Hungarian case law practices: If a term places exchange rate risk on consumers and as a result is declared unfair, which leads to invalidity of a loan contract, this contract cannot then be declared valid and have its terms amended by courts. It does not matter whether the amendment would change the currency of the loan or of the interest rate or set the ceiling on the exchange rate (para 50). The court recalls the previously raised arguments on the need to assure the dissuasive effect of the UCTD by not allowing national courts to modify unfair contract terms (paras 38-41). The previously adopted exception, for when invalidating a contract due to unfairness would expose consumers to particularly detrimental consequences, and where there is a possibility to replace the unfair term with a supplementary provision of national law, still stands (para 42). If such supplementary provisions do not exist, national courts could still help consumers facing detrimental consequences of contract's invalidity, e.g. by inviting parties to negotiate new terms, within the framework set by national courts (para 46) or by ordering repayment of sums wrongly received by the lender on the basis of the unfair term as unjust enrichment (para 48). But national courts, in their efforts to protect consumers from detrimental consequences, cannot go beyond what is 'strictly necessary' to restore contractual balance.

This is perhaps just a reiteration of the previously declared rules (mainly in Lombard Lizing and Banca B, see here on the latter), but it is a needed repetition. This in light of the tendency of national courts to still try to colour outside the lines set by the CJEU in cases related to consumer loan contracts denominated in foreign currencies.

Substituting unfair exchange rate terms with supplementary provisions

Further, the CJEU reiterated Dziubak (see here) and stressed the narrow scope for what constitutes supplementary provisions, with which national courts may replace unfair exchange rate terms in consumer loan contracts. This substitution may only happen in exceptional cases, i.e. when consumers face 'particularly unfavourable consequences' (para 52). Further, such provisions cannot be of a general nature (para 55), as they had to be adopted to specifically address the need to restore the balance between the parties (para 54). This also means that  such supplementary provisions need to 'usefully replace the same term by a mere substitution by the national court which does not require action on the part of that court that would amount to revising the content of an unfair term in that contract' (para 56).