Filip Wojciechowski
As reported by “Rzeczpospolita” on Friday (May 28th ), the District Court in Białystok by a judgment of May 19th, 2021 in case I C 609/20 dismissed the claim of ING Bank Śląski S.A. against creditors regarding the payment of remuneration for using the capital after the annulment of the loan agreement indexed to the Swiss franc.
(more…)After almost five hours of deliberation the full composition of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, despite almost five hours of deliberation, did not adopt a resolution on May 11th, resolving the legal questions regarding foreign currency loans, raised by the First President. Instead, the Supreme Court asked the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman for Children, the President of the National Bank of Poland, the Financial Supervision Authority and the Financial Ombudsman – to outline their positions on the case. These entities have 30 days to do so.
(more…)In the judgment of April 29th 2021, in the case C-19/20, the CJEU found that:
1) a contractual term held to be unfair must be regarded, in principle, as never having existed, so that it cannot have any effect on the consume (point 43),
2) the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms’ (point 53),
3) Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as prohibiting the national court from modifying that contract by revising the content of that term on (point 67),
4 the situation of one of the parties to the contract cannot be regarded as the decisive criterion determining the fate of the contract – objective approach must be applied (point 56),
5) the consumer, being informed about the consequences of invalidity, may renounce the protection resulting from the directive and not claim his rights (point 46) and/or may conclude a renewal contract (points 48-49),
6) that it is for the national court to find that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, even if it has been contractually amended by those parties. Such a finding leads to the restoration of the situation that the consumer would have been in in the absence of the term found to be unfair, except where the consumer, by means of amendment of the unfair term, has waived such restoration by free and informed consent, (point 61).
(more…)