This is the first issue of the so-called. significant judgment on the OCCP. The possibility of such a given amendment to the Act on competition and consumer protection, which entered into force in April this year. Significant view on this position, in which the Authority shall submit to the court arguments and ideas important to the dispute. The final decision is with the court.
– The state as an organization should help all its citizens, including those who are in a difficult situation as Frankowicz, and give them a helping hand. Frankowiczów situation not only affects the same frankowiczów, but also to the whole economy – said on Thursday the President of UOKiK Marek Niechciał, justifying the reasons for this view requested of the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in Warsaw.
Credit francs you will have to immediately pay?
The case concerns
1247 mBank customers who come in a group lawsuit damages in connection with the application of unlawful provisions in loan agreements by mBank, which too general and imprecise determined the reasons for changes in interest rates.
“Umowy may be declared null and void “
As said Marek Niechciał, the Authority concluded that a provision appearing in those credit agreements is not allowed in the whole range. Thus, not binding on the consumer, and since that provision specifies the grounds for changing the interest rate, and thus a vital part of the agreement, the challenged provision could even lead to the invalidity of the entire agreement.
dispute concerning interest payments agreements began even before the sudden appreciation of the franc. it is about a record contract , which states that “the change in the interest rate of the loan may occur if you change the reference rate specified for a given currency and changes in financial parameters money and capital market in the country (or countries associated in the European Union), whose currency is the basis of valuation.” in the opinion of customers bank caused it, that when unfavorable for them to change these parameters, the bank raised the interest rate on the loan, and the favorable change – it is not lowered or decreased to a sufficient extent.
History litigation
The case against mBank – filed by the Municipal Commissioner for Consumer Protection in Warsaw – went to court in late 2010. Both the district court, as the appeal court considered that the disputed provision is abusive (illegal) and mBank improperly perform credit agreement, as it introduced changes in interest rates on the basis of the above. illegal clause. The courts have recognized that the increase in interest rates made under it are unfounded and should be taken with a fixed interest rate of the loan period the loan agreement. As a result, it was liable for damages mBank (in this case, the contractual liability) to 1,247 clients concerned group on this issue.
After the abolishment of the bank’s case went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the opinion that the clause variable borrowing rate is an illegal decision, but only in part of determining the possibility of changes in interest rates. In support to the judgment it emphasized that this passage is ambiguous, unintelligible to the consumer and leaving freedom of decision-making to the bank.
The Supreme Court found, however, that a further part of the contested provisions concerning the addiction rate of financial performance, is not abusive . Also ruled that the use of contracts unauthorized provision is not synonymous with failure or improper performance of the contract, and does not automatically lead to contractual bank. SN also questioned the decision of the court of appeal, in which it was assumed that the ineffectiveness of abusive clause volatility of interest leads to the use of a fixed interest rate.
The case back to the Court of Appeal in Lodz, and it is in those proceedings OCCP presented his opinion.
Position mBank
mBank announced on its website that it will review the position of the office. The statement also indicated that “the matter clients with collective proceedings against mBank – the appeal of the Supreme Court, which agreed with the bank – was sent for reconsideration by the Court of Appeal” and “argument mBank, presented before the courts in this case, does not change “.
this case is the first dispute, in which the president of the OCCP decided to express an important idea. As explained by Vice President of the OCCP Dorothy Karczewska, “President of the Office may assist its essential view in the matter, the case must have a dimension of public law, ie. The socially important and concerning phenomena commonly found on the market.”
President of the Office may issue a significant view on its own initiative, at the request of the consumer or entrepreneur or at the request of the court. Authority in the issuing of view is not guided by only the interests of the consumer, and – as defined by a vice-president of the OCCP – “tries to look for objective truth and balance the interests and entrepreneurs”, so it can come to a situation in which the consumer does not agree with the view of the OCCP.
Margaret Sadurska, head of the Office of the President of assistance to frankowiczów:
Source: TVN24 / x-news
IAR / PAP, Celebrating
No comments:
Post a Comment