Dr. Trócsányi László igazságügyi miniszter 2015. február 5. napján írásba foglalta elképzeléseit az il-liberális igazságszolgáltatásról.
Álláspontja szerint egy il-liberális országban nincs szükség független bíróságokra. A bíróságok helyett ugyanis a parlament végzi el a jogviták rendezését.
Trócsányi László – Miért állnak a devizaperek
Dr. Trócsányi László gondolatai világosan mutatják, hogy Magyarország igazságügyi minisztere nem rendelkezik azzal a tudással, ami egy XXI. századi jogállami igazságszolgáltatás vezetéséhez szükséges.
Annak érdekében, hogy az Európai Unió döntéshozói is megismerhessék a magyar igazságügyi miniszter avítt gondolatait, lefordítottuk a miniszter úr állásfoglalását angol nyelvre és elküldtük Vĕra Jourovának, az Európai Bizottság igazságügyekért is felelős biztosának.
Magyarország csak akkor lesz egy erős és sikeres ország, ha a senki nem kérdőjelezi meg a hatalmi ágak szétválasztását!
Olvassa el nyílt levelünket Vĕra Jourovának és a miniszter állásfoglalásának angol fordítását.
Iratkozzon fel a jobb-oldali oszlopban a Hírlevelünkre, Likeoljon minket a Facebookon és kövessen minket a Twitteren, hogy az elsők között értesüljön az eredményeinkről!
Commissioner for Justice, Consumers
and Gender Equality
Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200
26 February 2015
Breach of Union law by Hungary
RN/, Ares (2014) 4003572
Dear Ms Jourová,
Further to my letter of 17 December 2014 I am sending you the English translation of a statement made by the Hungarian Minister of Justice in connection with the laws that aim to provide relief to the tens of thousands of consumers with foreign currency mortgages.
The statement proves that establishing an illiberal state in Hungary is not just a vision of Prime Minister Orbán’s, but it is already being implemented by his minister, Mr Trócsányi.
The statement was given in response to a question from MP Gábor Fodor of the Hungarian Liberal Party.
According to the laws, lawsuits between consumers and banks have been stopped until 31 December 2015. Mr Fodor asked Mr Trócsányi why the FX court cases are on hold and when the proper administration of justice will be restored.
This question is firmly in the public interest because nearly 12,000 court cases are pending, hundreds of consumers have asked the Constitutional Court to declare the laws void, and a consumer has already submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that her right to a fair trial is being violated.
In his reply the Minister of Justice explains his views on the separation of powers. According to his ideas, there is no need for an independent judiciary in Hungary. Court opinions cannot stand on their own; they must be “ratified” by parliament. A temporary political majority can decide on the application of the law and is entitled to resolve disputes by legislation. The Hungarian government has gone so far as to publicly offer payment to consumers if they abandon their claims.
The statement of the Minister of Justice is frightening. He subordinates the judiciary to the legislative power. I am not aware of any European member state in which the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers would be questioned.
The statement, however, is in line with the authoritarian ambitions of the government in power. This government believes that a stable political majority is the source of unlimited power over society.
I am asking you to carefully investigate the legal situation in Hungary and make it clear that illiberal positions in relation to the judicial system are not compliant with European constitutional traditions and that this approach will not be tolerated by the European Union.
Translation of a Statement of the Hungarian Minister of Justice in connection with the laws that aim of providing relief to tens of thousands of consumers who have foreign currency mortgages. Translation prepared by PITEE, 26 February 2015
MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Registration number: VII/24/2/2015
MP Gábor Fodor
Dear Member of Parliament,
The following information is in reply to your question No. K/2811 “Why Are Forex Loan Lawsuits on Hold?”, which requires a written response under Section 42(9) of Act XXXVI of 2012 on the National Assembly.
In its Civil Law Uniformity Decision 2/2014, the Supreme Court (Kúria) adopted a guidance decision about the unfairness of certain clauses of consumer loan contracts (exchange rate spread, clauses enabling the unilateral amendment of a contract). To ensure that the principles laid down in the Kúria decision are enforced directly not only in pending litigations but also in connection with non-litigated claims in connection with consumer loan contracts, the National Assembly adopted Act XXXVIII of 2014 on the Settlement of Particular Issues Related to the Uniformity Decision of the Supreme Court (Kúria) on Consumer Loans Provided by Financial Institutions (hereinafter referred to as: Uniformity Act), which enacts the principles laid down in the Kúria’s uniformity decision. Moreover, the Uniformity Act stipulates an obligation for financial institutions to prove in court the fairness of contractual clauses deemed unfair under the presumption laid down, i.e., financial institutions may bring an action against the Hungarian State in which they prove their contractual clauses were fair. The purpose envisaged by this is that the burden should not lie with the consumers to bring action individually or to prove the unfairness of contractual clauses in their pending actions against the financial institution.
The next milestone in settling the issues related to foreign currency loans was the adoption of Act XL of 2014 on the Rules of Settlement laid down in Act XXXVIII of 2014 on the Settlement of Particular Issues Related to the Uniformity Decision of the Supreme Court (Kúria) on Consumer Loans Provided by Financial Institutions, and Other Particular Provisions (hereinafter referred to as: Settlement Rules Act), which is integrally related to the Uniformity Act. The Settlement Rules Act aims at ensuring that revamped settlements between the financial institution and the consumers – after the fairness or unfairness of certain contractual clauses are no longer matters of dispute, as explained above – take place according to the basic principles laid down in the law.
Therefore, one of the goals pursued by halting the lawsuits previously brought in the matter of consumer loan contracts is to establish, prior to a decision being adopted in the given case, which of the financial institution’s contractual clauses qualify as unfair so that instead of having each consumer prove this individually in a separate action against the financial institution, the financial institution has to do so in an action brought against the Hungarian State. Additionally, a hold on the actions also seeks to ensure that the revamped settlement between the consumer and the financial institution specified in the Settlement Rules Act can be implemented. If all these matters occur between the contractual parties (i.e., the financial institution and the consumer) fairly and in consideration of the legal provisions, there will be no need to pursue the action on hold or, in the case of non-litigated claims, to bring a lengthy court action. However, if a dispute still remains between the parties in the pending action, then the new rules of settlement, which are more favourable to the consumer, can be enforced in the given action. All these facilitate a prompter and satisfactory settlement of the legal relationships concerned.
Please be advised that there are currently roughly 180,000 civil and economic actions before first-instance courts, and even now the matter being discussed affects 640,000 consumer loan contracts. One can easily picture the impact in terms of the caseload of the judicial system and the time limits for settling the cases if each consumer affected brought a court action to enforce their rights. At the same time, the legislature has established a regulation which makes it possible to reach a lawful settlement that takes consumers’ rights into consideration and does so within the shortest time under the given circumstances and, if at all possible, without litigation. At the same time, this regulation renders pending litigations irrelevant on account of the prescribed settlement rules and so makes it worthwhile for the parties in action to terminate them.
The legislature intends to expedite the aforementioned goals with its own tools. Under Section 40 of the Settlement Rules Act, if the parties to the action settle no later than the first hearing date following the resumption of proceedings or if they jointly request termination of the action, the duties of the court action are paid by the state; each party pays its own costs in excess of this, and the court will decide on the matters ex officio. Court fees are also paid by the state if the claimant abandons the claim no later than the first hearing date following the resumption of proceedings, thereby causing the court action to be terminated. Thus, these provisions are also aimed at incentivising the parties to terminate the suits.
Therefore, the actions put on hold may be resumed once the revamped settlement prescribed for the parties by law has been put into place, which basically means once the revised settlement has been reported to the court. All this is primarily for the benefit of the debtors, but the banks and the justice system also benefit because it provides an opportunity for the final settlement which will facilitate the conclusion of pending litigations and the final resolution of disputes between the parties so as to prevent any need for further litigation.
Budapest, 5 February 2015
Dr László Trócsányi
Trócsányi László – Miért állnak a devizaperek
Kérjük, támogassa egyesületünk tevékenységét!
A legkisebb adomány is számít.
Bankszámlaszámunk: Számla tulajdonos:
Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és
ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.
Támogatását nagyon köszönjük!