“Ripped off in mBank” It’s not the end of the dispute with the bank frankowiczów … – GazetaPrawna.pl

Earlier mBank (formerly BRE Bank), lost in two sets of proceedings of a lawsuit borrowers who took out loans in francs.

The first instance court upheld a collective complaint in 1247, “frankowiczów” who questioned the provisions of the agreement with the bank . They allowed mBank a change in the interest rate depending on the reference rate for the currency and financial parameters of changes in the money market and the capital of the country whose currency is the basis of indexation. The first instance court held that the clause is ambiguous and concluded that it does not involve customers of the bank. The ruling was upheld in second instance, but, according to the defendant bank, it happened in conflict with the law. The Bank primarily questioned the admissibility of a class action in this case.

Judge-Rapporteur of the Supreme Court, quoted in Wednesday’s statement the Supreme Court, insisted that the proceedings dealt with three issues: the admissibility of the group, whether the clause is unacceptable, that is, abusive to customers and what are the consequences of believing it to be inadmissible.

The Supreme Court on 30 April. He recognized at a hearing of the House Civil cassation complaint against the defendant bank in a case brought by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman to establish the liability class action bank customers, who questioned the provisions of a collective lawsuit loan agreements, allowing the bank to change interest rates on mortgages in Swiss francs. The court decided to postpone the announcement judgment to 14 May this year.

filed a cassation complaint against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lodz on 30 April 2014., Where the court dismissed the bank’s appeal against the judgment of the District Court in Lodz. The court of first instance granted the action “frankowiczów” and found contested clause setting out the conditions for changing the interest rate for vague and said that she does not bind clients.

The disputed between the parties was, among others, evaluation of the provisions of the loan agreement providing for the possibility of changing the interest rate of the loan depending on changes in the reference rate for the currency, and changes in financial parameters money and capital market of the country whose currency is the basis for indexation.

Proxy defendant in the cassation appeal raised allegations of violations of both the procedural law and substantive, including the assessment of the provisions at issue between the parties to the loan agreement. In its defense, the plaintiff’s attorney appealed to dismiss the cassation appeal.