• The effects of CJEU judgment C-260/18 apply to any contract containing prohibited clauses.
• Banks cannot demand remuneration for the use of capital in case of cancellation of the agreement - explains UOKiK President Marek Niechciał.
• Details of the position, which is important for consumers, can be found on the website: finanse.uokik.gov.pl.

The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) is following the debate on the judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU in case C-260/18. Ruling C-260/18 is relevant not only to foreign currency mortgages, but to any case where there are prohibited clauses. As contradictory information is provided - published in the media and in the positions taken by banks - the Office has addressed the most important issues arising from this ruling. According to UOKiK, they have been wrongly interpreted and presented.

- We are seeing and analysing very different statements on the CJEU ruling. We are concerned about opinions and positions that contradict the conclusions of this ruling. We have prepared a position which will be an important guide for borrowers in their fight for their rights. We will watch the actions of banks that try to scare or misinform their clients about the consequences of the judgement, and intervene in case of any breach of law. We also hope that this position will be helpful to all common courts, which are currently flooded with borrowers' suits - says Marek Niechciał, President of UOKiK.

In its position, UOKiK states, inter alia, that:

1. The CJEU ruling is relevant to any contract containing prohibited clauses;
2. A contract may be terminated only with consent of the consumer. Such a solution can often be beneficial to the consumer;
3. Article 358 para. 2 of the Civil Code, referring to the average exchange rate of the National Bank of Poland (NBP), cannot be considered a default rule, i.e. it cannot be applied in place of invalid, prohibited provisions of CHF credit agreements;
4. Banks are not entitled to demand remuneration for the use of capital and interest if the court annuls an agreement for a mortgage loan in a foreign currency.

- Following the increasing number of reports of banks trying to put pressure on borrowers questioning the validity of loan agreements because of their abusive clauses, I see no legal basis for them to be entitled to claim any sums of money from their clients if the court annuls the agreement. I would like to remind you that the reason for this ruling is the use of prohibited clauses by banks, which violate good manners and the interests of consumers. A situation in which only consumers are paying for illegal activities of banks cannot be allowed. In such a situation, only the clients of financial institutions bear the consequences, and banks do not bear any, or even benefit from it, despite the fact that they used abusive provisions. This is clearly inconsistent with the provisions of Directive 93/13 on unfair contract terms - says Marek Niechciał.

The position of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection can be found at finanse.uokik.gov.pl.

Additional information for the media:

UOKiK Press Office
Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warszawa, Poland
Phone +48 695 902 088, +48 22 55 60 246
E-mail: [SCODE]Yml1cm9wcmFzb3dlQHVva2lrLmdvdi5wbA==[ECODE]
Twitter: @UOKiKgovPL