For a week now, almost all industry portals have been overflowing with TEU judgment messages on credit, the value of which was expressed in Polish currency, but has been indexed to the Swiss franc rate. The judgment of the TEU concerned only the case of Mr Dziubak and their dispute with Raiffeisen Bank International AG, but the argument used by the TEU is of a universal nature and can provide a strong argument in the fight against the banks.
Although the judgment is undoubtedly beneficial to consumers, it does not provide a guarantee of a favourable outcome in other, similar cases. It should be remembered that credit issues in francs are not identical, often complicated and multifaceted. However, the resolution of the TEU will certainly serve Polish courts as an aid in interpreting credit agreements.
In the District Court for Warsaw Śródmieście collapsed first a judgment in which the national court has been assisted by a decision of the TEU. In the present case, the court issued a judgment favourable to consumers who demanded that credit agreements be modified
The essence of the ruling is a passage of the justification in which the TEU indicated that a non-abuse contract remains binding on the other provisions contained therein, provided that the contract can continue to apply without the deleted clauses.
It is not possible to supplement the content of the agreement with the general principles of Polish law. If, on the other hand, the removal of the abusive clauses leads to a change in the nature of the contract, it is appropriate to cancel the credit agreement in its entirety.
In the District Court for Warsaw Śródmieście collapsed first a judgment in which the national court has been assisted by a decision of the TEU. In the present case, the court issued a judgment favourable to consumers who demanded the modification of credit agreements.
In the statement of reasons for the judgment, the court indicated that credit agreements contained prohibited clauses that do not bind consumers. Therefore, the parties to the agreement were and are bound solely by the content of the agreement which was left after the removal of the abusive provisions.
Such resolution means that the customers of the bank are required to return the capital in the instalments, according to the LIBOR rate for the Swiss franc since the start of the loan (i.e. lower than the gold one).
The regional court did not support the bank’s argument that the existence of the abusive clauses in the contract should result in the settlement of the instalments at the NBP average rate (i.e. more favourable to the bank).
This is where the district court referred to the judgment of the TEU, pointing out that it is not possible to supplement the content of the contract after the removal of the abusive clause with general principles of Polish law.
The judgment means ‘a benefit’ for consumers in total of ca. 100,000 PLN. Although this is only the judgment of First Instance, and the bank is likely to bring an appeal, it is already visible how important the ruling of the TEU for Polish jurisprudence practice will be.
However, it is worth noting that the TEU has not decided whether the provisions referring to the exchange rate tables are not permitted. This was not the subject of proceedings. It is up to the court investigating a specific case to determine whether the contract is valid or invalid, and if it is important, in what shape.