The District Court in Warsaw declared the “Frank” State loan agreement of Dziubaków invalid. It was on this agreement that the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg issued a voiced opinion with 3 October 2019
The case concerns a mortgage credit agreement on 480 months, expressed in gold but indexed to the franc that the Dziubakow States have made as consumers In November 2008 According to the borrowers, some of the provisions of the credit agreement were abusive clauses (not permitted) and therefore the contract cannot be maintained.
In their view, these provisions were illegal because they enabled the bank to determine the exchange rate unilaterally and freely. They claimed that the bank unilaterally determines the credit balance as well as the result of the conversion of the loan instalment in foreign currency into an amount in Polish currency.
The Dziubaks did not question indexing to the franc, but the mechanism for determining the course of the franc.
The judgment given by the district court confirms that the opinion of the EUS 3 October 2019, is a very effective tool in consumer disputes with banks.
TEU opinion
The Court of the District Court in Warsaw referred questions for a preliminary ruling to the EU Court of Justice on the unfair terms of consumer contracts. Questions referred to whether the court could replace such prohibited provisions with general provisions of Polish civil law.
In a press release, the TEU stated that in Poland's credit agreements indexed to foreign currency, unfair terms of the agreement on exchange differences cannot be replaced by general provisions of Polish civil law. According to the Court, EU law does not prevent the cancellation of credit agreements in Swiss francs.
Judgment of the District Court
Judgment dated 3 January 2020 The district court divided the argument of the Dziubak State concerning. the abuzzities of the exchange rate records. According to the court, this led to contractual imbalances between the parties and the introduction by the bank of clauses contrary to good manners.
The Court of First Instance pointed out that the bank had not informed the borrowers of the actual risk of the consumer as it merely presented the risk of the installment increasing by 20% without information on the impact on debt.
The Court of First Instance indicated that, for these reasons, the contract is invalid, leading to the release of the mortgage and the absence of further repayment of credit instalments.
The judgment given by the district court confirms that the opinion of the EUS 3 October 2019, is a very effective tool in consumer disputes with banks.