14.5 C
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

The Frankowicze were to be evicted. The Supreme Court ordered a retrial

Must read

- Advertisement -

The Supreme Court has referred for reconsideration the case brought by the Financial Ombudsman of a default execution judgment against real estate purchased with a loan in Swiss francs, RF announced on Thursday.

According to the Financial Ombudsman, it is about an extraordinary complaint brought by him to the Supreme Court regarding a default judgment regarding the immediate repayment of a loan taken out in francs for the purchase of real estate. Customers who signed a mortgage loan agreement for 360 months in 2008, borrowing PLN 288,000, came to RF. PLN, which was converted to less than 150 thousand. francs. According to RF information, the borrowers had been repaying the loan for more than 10 years, but at one point they could not pay the installments on time. Then the bank terminated the loan agreement and then filed a lawsuit, demanding immediate payment of over 468,000 zloty. – by 180 thousand PLN more than borrowed by customersdue to the mechanism of indexation of the loan amount to the franc exchange rate, which strengthened against the zloty in this period.

The bank ordered the execution of the debt, among others based on real estate

According to RF, the court found that the circumstances of the case did not raise any doubts and allowed the claim. Meanwhile, the defendants did not have the support of a professional attorney and, as a result, did not effectively challenge the judgment within the required time limit. Thus, the default judgment became final. The borrowers were obliged to pay the entire amount demanded, and the bank carried out execution based on the judgment, among others from their property. The clients turned to the RF, which, after examining the case files, decided to bring an extraordinary complaint, assessing that the conversion clauses referring to exchange rate tables set unilaterally by the bank, without indicating objective criteria, are non-transparent, leave room for arbitrary action by the bank and thus they burden the borrower with unpredictable risk and violate the principle of equality of the parties. Therefore – according to the RF – they grossly violate consumer interests and are contrary to good practice.

- Advertisement -

The Supreme Court ordered a retrial

Supreme Court considered the Defender’s arguments and remitted the case for reconsideration. As the Defender emphasized, on the basis of the already developed jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, before issuing a decision, the common court should examine whether the loan agreement underlying the basic relationship does not contain prohibited clauses. According to RF, the court should take into account that the case is of a consumer nature – the bank was a privileged party due to experience and knowledge, and the defendants did not have such specialist knowledge.

Main photo source: TVN24

Source link

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest article