Magyarország kormánya ismételten súlyosan megsértette a hitelesek emberi jogait azzal, hogy minden adósra kötelezően bevezette az önálló zálogjog intézményét!
Egy demokráciában a parlamentnek nincs joga beavatkozni magánjogi szerződésekbe. A demokráciák alapelve a hatalmi ágak szétválasztása. Ezen elv eredményeként csak bíróságok állapíthatnak magánjogi jogokat és kötelezettségeket.
Az OTP Bank és az UniCredit Bank Trócsányi László ügyvédi irodájának ügyfelei. Ennek fényében nyilvánvaló miért szolgáltatja ki a kormány az adósokat a bankok önkényének.
Javasoljuk minden adósnak, hogy nyújtson be alkotmányjogi panaszt az Alkotmánybírósághoz, annak érdekében, hogy később majd jogvédelemért fordulhasson a strasbourgi bírósághoz. A panasz mintáját mindenki letöltheti a weboldalunkról.
A PITEE egyesület levélben kérte az Európai Bizottságot, hogy indítson kötelezettségszegési eljárást Magyarország ellen, az Unió alapértékeinek megsértése miatt. Olvassa el az angol nyelvű beadványunkat.
Iratkozzon fel a jobb-oldali oszlopban a Hírlevelünkre, Likeoljon minket a Facebookon és kövessen minket a Twitteren, hogy az elsők között értesüljön az eredményeinkről!
Nyújtson be alkotmányjogi panaszt az önálló zálogjog bevezetése miatt!
A PITEE egyesület által javasolt mintát innen töltheti le:
Védje meg a lakását! Ne engedje az önálló zálogjog bevezetését!
PITEE, 2016.12.13.)
Ön csak akkor tud jogvédelmet kérni az Emberi Jogok Európai Bíróságától, ha előtte benyújtott alkotmányjogi panaszt az Alkotmánybírósághoz!
Az általunk javasolt panaszt azok az adósok is benyújthatják, akiknek a szerződésében már korábban is önálló zálogjog szerepelt. A Ptk. legutóbbi módosítása ugyanis felülírja a korábbi önálló zálogjogokat is.
Tudomásunk van arról, hogy az Alkotmánybíróság hiánypótlási felhívásokat küldött ki azoknak, akik már benyújtották az általunk javasolt mintát. Hamarosan közzé fogjuk tenni a hiánypótlási felszólításra benyújtható választ.
Levél az Európai Bizottsághoz 2017.01.20.
Levél az Európai Bizottsághoz az önálló zálogjog bevezetése miatt (2017.01.20).
European Commission
Directorate General Financial Stability, Financial Services
and Capital Markets Union
Unit D3 – Retail financial services and Payments
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Budapest, 20 January 2017
CHAP(2016)03884
Dear Ms Frankova,
Thank you for your email dated 12.01.2017. I was trying to reach you by phone last week.
We are pleased the Commission is taking care of our complaint.
We would like to note that the subject matter of our complaint is a violation of fundamental rights and the rule of law. We would therefore like to suggest you get sufficient support from the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (Dir C — Fundamental rights and rule of law) for the assessment of our arguments.
You will especially need support from a lawyer with a deep and solid understanding of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In view of the European Union’s current crisis, we recommend you involve a lawyer registered in any of the founding member states of the European Coal and Steel Community or in the United Kingdom.
1. What is Hungarian law LXXVII of 2016 about (its title)?
The title of the law is rather simple: Law on the amendment of the Hungarian Civil Code.
The Hungarian Civil Code is often cited as “Act V of 2013”. The Hungarian parliament uses Roman numerals to designate legislative acts.
2. What is the exact wording of the two provisions 28 and 29 you mention?
Provisions 28 and 29 of Act LXXVII of 2016 are technical provisions.
Provisions 1-24 of Act LXXVII of 2016 contain various amendments introducing a new type of financial collateral to the Civil Code.
Prior to this amendment, there was only one type of financial collateral in civil law that banks could use to secure their claims for repayment of consumer debts. After the amendment of the Civil Code, banks had the option to agree with the consumer which of the two types of collateral to use.
Provisions 28 and 29 do not amend the Civil Code; they modify the content of existing loan agreements between consumers and banks by establishing new rights and obligations for the parties under these agreements.
More specifically, the provisions let banks transform their existing collateral into the new type of collateral without the consent of the consumers. Banks only need to serve a declaration to the consumers, which then allows them to transform the existing collateral into the new type of collateral. Consumers have no right of defence against such modification of their contracts. The land registry is obliged to record this amendment of the contract if the bank proves that the declaration was served to the consumer.
Attached I am sending you the Hungarian text of provisions 28 and 29.
3. Can you describe in more detail the problem the consumers face regarding the „akzessorische Sicherheit”? Please explain the meaning of the term?
Provisions 28 and 29 violate fundamental rights and the rule of law because parliament is not entitled to interfere with civil law matters, which means parliament may not adopt legislation that grants banks the right to amend existing loan agreements without the consent of their customers.
Loan agreements between banks and consumers contain civil rights and obligations, which can only be amended by the consent of the parties or established by independent tribunals (s. also Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
Please note that there is no need to understand the meaning of the terms “akzessorische Sicherheit”, “Hypothek” and “Grundschuld” in order to assess our complaint. We used these German legal terms only in order to explain more briefly the difference between the two types of financial collateral.
For the purpose of our complaint, it suffices to understand that parliament introduced a new type of collateral into civil law and granted banks the right to transform their existing collateral into the new collateral without the consent of the consumers.
4. Can you also explain the relevance of the cited decisions of the Constitutional Court or attach more information about the EU Pilot 8572/15, if available.
The Hungarian parliament frequently violates Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Provisions 28 and 29 of Act LXXVII of 2016 are not the only rules adopted by parliament that interfere with civil law matters.
The Hungarian parliament violated fundamental rights and the rule of law with legislation in connection with foreign currency (FX) consumer loans in 2014. The cited decisions of the Hungarian Constitutional Court contain the arguments used by Hungarian judges to justify the parliament’s involvement in civil law matters. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but the cited decisions of the Constitutional Court also violate fundamental rights and the rule of law.
The European Commission is investigating the breach of EU law in the case of FX loan agreements in EU Pilot 8572/15.
We requested access to the documents of EU Pilot 8572/15, but the Commission rejected our request. Please ask Ms Veronika MANFREDI (Head of Unit, Consumer and Marketing Law, DG Just) for more information.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information.
I would be grateful if you would occasionally give us an update on the status of our complaint.
Best regards,
signature
www.pitee.org/english
Panasz az önálló zálogjog bevezetése miatt 2016.12.18.
| Are you submitting this complaint on your own behalf? | yes |
| Representative Businesses or organisation | |
| Title | Ms |
| Representative first name | |
| Representative last name | |
| Representative E-mail | |
| Representative street and number | |
| Representative postcode | |
| Representative town | |
| Representative country | — select — |
| Representative telephone | |
| Businesses or organisation: | Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület |
| Title | Mr |
| Firstname | |
| Surname | |
| pitee2008@gmail.com | |
| Language | Deutsch |
| Street and number | Mátyás tér 17 |
| Postcode | 1084 |
| Town | Budapest |
| Country | Hungary |
| Telephone | |
| official contact for all correspondence | representative |
| Authority complained about name | Parlament |
| Authority complained about contact person | László Kövér, Präsident |
| Authority complained about email | kover.laszlo@parlament.hu |
| Authority complained about | kover.laszlo@parlament.hu |
| Authority complained about telephone | |
| Authority complained about address | Kossuth Lajos tér 1-3 |
| Authority complained about postcode | 1055 |
| Authority complained about town | Budapest |
| Authority complained about country | Hungary |
| National measures suspected to infringe Union law | §§ 28-29. des Gesetzes Nr. LXXVII. aus 2016. |
| EU law you think has been breached | Art. 2 EU-Vertrag „Rechtsstaatlichkeit”, Art 47 EU-Charta der Grundrechte „Recht auf ein faires Verfahren” |
| Problem description | Die §§ 28-29. des Gesetzes Nr. LXXVII aus 2016 verändern den Inhalt von privatrechtlichen Verträgen die Banken und Darlehensnehmer geschlossen haben. Das Gesetz führt eine nicht akzessorische Sicherheit (nach deutschem Recht „Grundschuld”) in das ungarisc |
| Does the Member State concerned receive EU funding relating to the subject of your complaint | no |
| Does your complaint relate to a breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? | yes |
| Please explain how EU law is involved and which fundamental right has been breached | Es widerspricht den Grundsatz der Rechtsstaatlichkeit, wenn die Gesetzgebung privatrechtlichen Rechte und Pflichte der Bürger durch Gesetz verändert. Privatrechtlichen Ansprüche und Verpflichtungen dürfen nur durch unparteiischen Gerichten in fairen Verf |
| List of documents | Gesetz Nr. LXXVII aus 2016 über die Änderung des ungarischen BGB, mit dem Ziel der Einführung einer nicht akzessorischen Sicherheit (nach deutschem Recht „Grundschuld”). |
| Have you already taken action in the Member State concerned to try to solve this problem? | yes |
| What action have you already taken in the Member State concerned to tackle the problem? | Legal action |
| What type of decision(s) resulted from your action. | |
| Has your action has been settled by a court or is pending before a court. | Darlehensnehmer reichen seit Dezember 2016 Verfassungsbeschwerden beim ungarischen Verfassungsgerichtshof ein. Allerdings ist es zu erwarten, dass der Verfassungsgerichtshof diese Beschwerden verwerfen wird. Es existieren mehrere Entscheidungen des ungar |
| Why didn’t you take any action to tackle your problem in the Member State concerned? | |
| Indicate why you are not eligible for particular remedy | |
| Other reason for not taking action in the Member State concerned | |
| Have you already contacted EU institutions or other services dealing with problems of this nature | |
| Petition to the European Parliament | |
| European Ombudsman | |
| European Commission correspondence | |
| European Commission complaint | |
| SOLVIT | |
| Other (please specify) | |
| Are you aware of any action in the Member State concerned covering the issue you raise | yes |
| Please specify action you are aware of in the Member State concerned | |
| Do you authorise the Commission to disclose your identity | yes |
Kérjük, támogassa egyesületünk tevékenységét!
A legkisebb adomány is számít.
Bankszámlaszámunk: Számla tulajdonos:
Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és
Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület
Számlavezető Bank:
ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.
Bankszámlaszám
11600006-00000000-40556309
Támogatását nagyon köszönjük!
