At the request of the claimant – consumer, the Financial Ombudsman joined the case conducted before the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście under case file no. I C 1297/21.
The Financial Ombudsman sent a pleading to the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście in Warsaw concerning joining the case under case file no. I C 1297/21, an action brought by the borrower against the bank for remuneration for the use of capital, together with a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court considering the case.
A question referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerns a situation in which a credit agreement concluded by a bank and a consumer is void from the outset because it contains unfair contractual terms.
The Court asked the CJEU whether Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC and the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which the parties, in addition to reimbursement of the money paid in performance of the contract (the bank – the principal of the credit, the consumer – the instalments, fees, commissions and insurance premiums), and statutory default interest from the time of the demand for payment, may claim any other performance.
The referring court proposes that this question should be answered in the negative, i.e. that the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions and the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality preclude an interpretation of the national legislation which provides that the parties to a credit agreement are entitled to any benefits other than those referred to above.
The Financial Ombudsman has consistently taken the position that banks are not entitled to so-called remuneration for capital, which the Financial Ombudsman has repeatedly expressed by presenting its views in defence of clients sued by banks in court proceedings, including by presenting its position to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as by presenting the justification of its position to the Supreme Court.
