|
Jednostrana izmena ugovora o kreditu u pravu Mađarske
Unilateral modification of bank loan contracts under Hungarian law
Projekat: Članak je nastao kao rezultat rada na naučnoistraživačkom projektu Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Novom Sadu pod nazivom: Pravna tradicija i novi pravni izazovi
Sažetak
Pitanje dopuštenosti klauzula koje ovlašćuju banke na jednostranu izmenu ugovora o kreditu je i u mađarskom pravu imalo svoj razvojni put. Specifično je za mađarsko pravo, međutim, barem kada se ono uporedi sa pravom Srbije, da je u vreme izbijanja svetske ekonomske krize, tačnije nešto kasnije kada su sudski postupci povodom zahteva za poništaj takvih klauzula postali mnogobrojniji, imalo posebnu zakonsku regulativu posvećenu ovom pitanju, nekoliko odredaba Zakona o kreditnim ustanovama i finansijskim organizacijama iz 1996. godine (Hpt.). Hpt. od 1996. godine, u redakciji teksta važećoj od 1. januara 2004. godine, omogućavao je ugovaranje klauzule o pravu na jednostranu izmenu ugovora o kreditu, ali nije detaljnije uredio uslove pod kojima se takva klauzula može smatrati punovažnom, već prepustio stranama da ovu prazninu urede sporazumno. Ovakva sloboda ugovaranja je dovela do toga da su klauzule o pravu na jednostranu izmenu ugovora redovno bile formulisane tako da je banka imala široku slobodu u njenoj primeni. Uvidevši opasnost od zloupotreba, zakonodavac je izmenio regulativu o klauzuli o jednostranoj izmeni ugovora u starom Hpt.-u. Nova redakcija starog Hpt.-a, koja je bila na snazi od 1. januara 2010. godine, sadržala je znatno detaljniju regulativu i propisivala strože uslove punovažnosti klauzule o pravu na jednostranu izmenu ugovora o kreditu. Međutim, čak i uz detaljniju regulativu ovog pitanja u novijoj redakciji starog Hpt.-a, brojna pitanja ostala su otvorena, na koja je odgovor morala da dâ vrhovna sudska instanca, tj. Kurija. To je prvi put pokušano u presudi Kurije u postupku Partiscum 201 . godine, ali je celovito tumačenje uslova pod kojima je ugovaranje prava na jednostranu izmenu ugovora punovažno dato tek u zaključku sednice građansko-pravnog odeljenja Kurije br. PK 2/2012. (XII.10). U zaključku je zauzet stav da je takva ugovorna klauzula punovažna, ukoliko je nedvosmisleno i jasno formulisana; ako su razlozi jednostrane izmene taksativno nabrojani; ako su određeni objektivno; ako su izvršili stvarni uticaj na elemente koji utiču na kamatu, naknadu ili troškove u vezi sa ugovorom; ako je obim izmene ugovora srazmeran nastalim promenama; ako je klauzula za potrošača bila transparentna, odnosno ako garantuje potrošaču pravo na izmenu ugovora, ukoliko promene okolnosti idu njemu u prilog. Zahteve jasne i nedvosmislene formulacije i transparentnosti je Kurija načelnim stavom br. 2/2014. PJE dodatno kvalifikovala uslovom da se pod njima ne podrazumeva jezička i gramatička ispravnost klauzule, već zahtev da ona bude formulisana tako da omogući potrošaču da razume i proceni njene moguće ekonomske posledice. Usvajanje načelnog stava bilo je potrebno zbog toga što je u međuvremenu Evropski sud pravde doneo odluku u slučaju Kašler (C-26/13), kojim je u navedenom smislu dopunio tumačenje čl. 4. st. 2 Direktive br. 93/13/EEZ o nepravičnim odredbama u potrošačkim ugovorima. Konačnu etapu u razvoju pravne regulative predstavlja usvajanje Zakona br. XXXVIII iz 2014. godine, kojim je sadržina zaključaka Kurije podignuta na nivo opšteg pravnog akta. Zakon je izazvao brojne kritike u pogledu njegove ustavnosti. Najveća zamerka se odnosila na ustanovljavanje zakonske pretpostavke nepravičnosti svih ugovornih klauzula i odredaba opštih uslova poslovanja banaka kojima se utvrđuje pravo banke na jednostranu izmenu ugovora. Sa pravom se ističe u literaturi da su na ovaj način posledice nepotpunog i neadekvatnog zakonskog uređivanja ovog pitanja naknadno prevaljene na finansijske organizacije, čak i onda ako su u vreme zaključenja ugovora, odnosno kada su opšti uslovi poslovanja bili na snazi, njihove odredbe uskladile sa sadržinom važećih propisa. Zakon je, međutim, izdržao kontrolu ustavnosti. Danas se u Mađarskoj jednostrana izmena ugovora o kreditu na uštrb potrošača može ostvariti samo pod izuzetno strogim pravnim režimom. Prema izmenama Zakona o potrošačkom kreditu, usvojenog 2009. godine, iz 2014. godine, ugovori sa rokom otplate do tri godine ne mogu biti jednostrano izmenjeni na uštrb potrošača, dok u onima sa dužim rokom otplate kamatna stopa može da bude povećavana najviše u pet navrata i mora ostati nepromenjena najmanje tri godine, pri čemu raspon u kojem finansijske organizacije mogu povećavati kamatnu stopu kontroliše Narodna banka Mađarske: stepen povećanja kamatne stope ne sme da bude veći od indeksa promene kamatne stope koje zvanično objavljuje Narodna banka na svojoj internet stranici.
Abstract
The issue of legality of stipulations enabling banks and other financial institutions to modify loan contracts unilaterally had its evolution in Hungarian law, too. What is peculiar to Hungarian law, if considered parallel to Serbian law, is that Hungary, at the eruption of the global financial crisis, or to be more precise, somewhat later, when the number proceedings for the annulment of loan contracts became significant, had specific legislation on this subject the matter, the 1996 Law on Credit Institutions and Financial Enterprises (Hpt.). The Law, in its text applicable until 1st January, 2004, considered valid stipulations enabling unilateral modification of loan contracts. However, it did not prescribe conditions under which such clause may be considered valid, but left freedom to parties to regulate it. The consequence of freedom of contract was that such stipulations have regularly been formulated, so that financial organizations had wide discretion in its application. Realizing the danger of abuse, the legislator changed the Law. The new text, effective from 1st January, 2010, contains considerably more detailed regulations and prescribes stringent conditions of validity of a clause on the right to amend the terms of the loan unilaterally. However, even with the more detailed regulations, a number of issues remained open that ultimately needed to be addressed by the supreme judicial instance, i.e. the Curia. It was first attempted in the judgment of the Curia in the so-called Partiscum case from 2011, but the most significant interpretation of the conditions under which stipulating the right to unilaterally amend the contract, was given in the decision no. PK 2/2012. (XII.10) of the civil law session of the Curia. The Curia stated that such stipulation shall be considered valid, if it is unambiguously and clearly formulated; if the reasons of unilateral modifications are enumerated; if they are determined objectively; if they have a real impact on the elements that influence the interest rate, fees and expenses in connection with the contract and that the scope of changes in the contract is proportional to the scope of changes of relevant circumstances; that the stipulation was transparent for consumers, and if the clause is applicable to the consumer as well, if the relevant circumstances change to his advantage. The requirements of clear and unambiguous formulation and transparency was further clarified in Curia's decision no. 2/2014. PJE. The Curia stated that for the fulfillment of this condition it is not satisfactory that the wording of the stipulation is correct linguistically and grammatically, but it requires that is should be formulated so as to enable the consumer to understand and assess its possible economic consequences. The adoption of this decision was necessary because the ECJ delivered its decision in the Kásler case (C-26/13) in the meantime, which complements the interpretation of Art. 4. sec. 2 of the Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The final stage in the evolution of the legal framework of the right to unilateral modifications of loan contracts in Hungarian law, was the enactment of the Law no. XXXVIII of 2014, which raised the content of the conclusions of the Curia to the level of general legal act. The law sparked much criticism regarding its constitutionality: concerns were raised in relation to the establishment of a legal presumption of unfairness of contractual clauses and provisions of general business conditions of banks that explicitly enabled them to change loan contracts unilaterally. It is stated correctly in the literature that by this means the consequences of incomplete and inadequate legal framework were subsequently shifted on financial institutions, even if at the time of conclusion of the contract, or when the general business conditions were in force, they were in line with the effective regulations. The Law has, however, sustained the control of constitutionality. In Hungary today, unilateral modification of banking loan contracts is subject to a very strict legal regime. According to the amendments of the Consumer credit act from 2014 loans with repayment period shorter than three years cannot be unilaterally modified to the detriment of the consumer at all. Contracts with longer repayment period can be modified to the detriment of the consumer up to five times, while the interest rate must remain unaltered for at least three years after each modification. In addition, the range in which financial organizations could increase the interest rate is controlled by the Hungarian Central Bank by disclosing indices officially in the range of which the interest rate could be altered.
|