Today, two important judgments were handed down by the CJEU concerning Swiss franc borrowers.

9 July 2025 • Autor: Kancelaria Brysiewicz Bokina i Wspólnicy

The CJEU resolved what its spokesperson had already said on 16 February 2023, i.e. that the bank does not have a claim against the borrower for reimbursement of amounts for the so-called use of capital, in a situation where the loan agreement is found to be invalid. The Court thus confirmed the thesis put forward for years by the defenders of the francophiles, i.e. that the recognition of this type of claim on the part of the bank is a contradiction of the purpose of Directive 93/13. In addition, today there was also another CJEU ruling (C-287/22) in which the CJEU disagreed that only those borrowers who have already ‘overpaid’ the loan have the right to apply for a suspension of instalment repayments.
Consequently, the CJEU ruling renders the bank’s claim to use the capital unfounded, and courts in Poland should not recognise this claim.

Until now, banks have argued that the court cannot declare a contract invalid because such a declaration could have grossly negative consequences for the consumer, among other things because the bank would then acquire the aforementioned claim to use the capital.

From today, it should be recognised that this ‘bogeyman’ of the bank no longer has any significant meaning. The CJEU ruling should therefore simplify and standardise the line of jurisprudence in Poland.

In addition, another CJEU ruling was issued today (C-287/22), in which the CJEU disagreed that only borrowers who have already ‘overpaid’ their loans are entitled to apply for a suspension of instalments. The CJEU found that such an interpretation is incorrect because the borrower should not be forced to subsequently extend their claim. The CJEU found that the non-suspension of instalment payments may even be necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment, as without it the full legal and factual situation prior to the conclusion of the agreement would not be restored.

The CJEU also pointed out that maintaining the obligation to pay instalments may lead to a deterioration of the borrower’s financial situation to such an extent that the consumer will not be able to assert their rights in court. The Court concluded that refusing to apply a safeguard by suspending instalment payments for the duration of the proceedings is contrary to the provisions of the Directive, but only if the safeguard was necessary and its absence would not ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment.

It follows from the above that Swiss franc borrowers who did not ‘overpay’ their loans should, in their application for security, in addition to referring to the content of the CJEU judgment C-287/22, also refer to their financial situation and, through this prism, attempt to justify how the lack of security will deprive them of the full effectiveness of the judgment in the future.

Author: Mateusz Kołodziejak 

O autorach

Autor
Zadaj pytanie autorowi
Poprzednia strona
The bankruptcy of Getin Bank, Swiss franc loans – what next?
Następna strona
Change in the legal form of the contractor during ongoing public procurement proceedings

Kontakt dla mediów

Avatar

Newsletter

Stay updated. Receive from us legal alerts, current comments and information about new publications of experts from the Brysiewicz, Bokina i Wspólnicy sp.k.

[FM_form id="2"]