Statement in this case was filed by consumers who were transported to mbank mortgage the Swiss franc. In 2013. they filed a lawsuit against the Bank. Borrowers become paragraphs, which do not accurately determine the possibility of changes in the interest rate on the loan. In 2015. the court of first instance found that the article was not abuzywna. In the explanatory note it is stated, inter alia, that consumers has not demonstrated that as a result of changes in interest rates suffered damage. Upon appeal, the case is currently pending before the court of second instance.
With the position the district court disagreed UOKiK.
“In the presented reviews the Post has divided opinion reasons that the article gives the right Bank arbitrary decisions on changing interest rates and consumers have no ability to verify the validity of such actions. The preconditions specified by the Bank, is too vague; there is no information when changes can be made and how will affect the interest rate”, – said the FZ Brands he didn’t.
unlike a court, the Office considered that the recognition proposals for unacceptable no matter if consumers suffered still damage. The application of the decree is not – in the opinion of UOKiK – values, because abuzywna article shall not apply to customers from the beginning. According to Authorities, unable to replace him with another position. In compliance with the banking legislation of the condition of interest rate changes are an integral part of the agreement, this may mean invalidity of the whole contract.
the Possibility of issuing a corresponding position on the case she gave Us the amendments to the law on protection of competition and consumers ‘ rights, which entered into force in April this year. A substantial viewpoint about this post, in which the Agency can share with the court his knowledge. It is not necessary for the court.
the Previous two important views of UOKiK also expressed in connection with the processes frankowiczów from Amazon.
the First connected with the dispute regarding interest rat contracts. We are talking about in this entry agreement, which provides that “the height change of the interest rate on the loan may occur in case of changes in the refinancing rate defined for the currency as well as the changes of financial indicators of the money market and capital of the country (or countries outside the EU) whose currency is the basis for indexing”. In the assessment of the Bank’s clients caused it that if adverse change these settings, the Bank raised the interest rate on the loan, and the change is beneficial – not reduced or was reduced sufficiently. UOKiK shared this view, finding that contained in treaties, the provision on the reasons for the changes in the interest rate is not allowed and may result in invalidity of the entire contract.
the Second important opinion concerned the contractual clauses used in the mBank loan agreement waloryzowanego for the Swiss franc. This loan is issued in UAH with the amount of capital converted to foreign currency and is the basis for determining the amount of the contribution to capital and credit. The altitude of monthly obligations defined in the Swiss Frank, but their maturity takes place in the Polish currency according to prior conversion at the Bank rate CHF.
Two of UOKiK accused by provisions enabled the Bank to arbitrarily determine the value of buying and selling the Swiss franc on the basis of which waloryzowano, respectively, the loan amount and the amount of contributions to capital-interest on loans. On its own initiative, the Bank has not indicated the criteria in determining these courses. UOKiK has divided the opinion of borrowers that these provisions are not allowed, as the Bank admitted to myself the right to unilaterally establish increased influence on the allowance of pages, and consumers had no opportunity to test the criteria adopted by the entrepreneur.
the Third is charged with proposals – according to the administration, but inaccurately described the reasons for changes in the interest rate on the loan, including uprawniała the Bank to take an arbitrary decision of his Majesty, and did not specify on what parameters can influence them. As a result, consumers was not able to predict when and to what extent the Bank can increase the payment on the loan, and to check the legality of the activities of the entrepreneur.