Does Transparency Lead to Unfairness? The Court of Justice of the European Union on the Duty to Inform about Mandatory Rules

Nicholas Mouttotos*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Ottília Lovasné Tóth v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. can be seen as a missed opportunity, first, in elaborating on Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, in particular whether the two criteria set by the article, of a term causing a ‘significant imbalance’ and it being contrary to ‘good faith’ should be assessed separately; and, second, at clarifying the status of the transparency requirement found in Article 5 of the directive. This case note focuses on the latter question taking into account the repercussions of the judgment of the CJEU in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl. In the latter case the CJEU introduced an information duty about the existence of mandatory rules such as Article 6(2) of Rome I Regulation. The CJEU with its decision in Ottília Lovasné Tóth decided to limit the scope of the judgment in Amazon to the particular circumstances of that case.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean review of contract law
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 9 Jun 2020

Cite this