EU Court of Justice allows net balance settlement in Polish Swiss franc loan cases
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on 10 September 2026 that national courts may offset claims between banks and borrowers in invalid Swiss franc mortgage disputes, awarding only the net difference if Polish law permits.
The ruling on mutual settlement
The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment on 10 September 2026 in case C-510/25 (Adazik), answering preliminary questions referred by the District Court in Warsaw. The litigation involved a Swiss franc-indexed mortgage loan contracted in 2005 and repaid early in 2015, after which the borrowers demanded a full reimbursement of all paid installments due to abusive contractual terms. The Luxembourg court established that Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of EU Directive 93/13 do not impose a single settlement procedure after a contract is declared void. National courts are permitted to apply the net balance theory (teoria salda) instead of the two conditions theory, provided domestic Polish law allows such an approach. Legal counsel Karolina Podlasin noted that while the two conditions model requires separate lawsuits for the entire capital disbursed and total installments paid, the net balance rule limits the claim to the surplus.
- Borrowers contract a Swiss franc-indexed mortgage loan in Poland.
- Borrowers repay the loan ahead of schedule before seeking a refund.
- CJEU rules that EU law permits offsetting claims under the net balance theory.
Consumer protections and judicial conditions
The European tribunal stipulated that applying the net balance method must not worsen the consumer's legal standing or deter individuals from exercising their consumer rights. Borrowers preserve the right to claim statutory late payment interest, but only on the surplus amount paid beyond the principal received from the lender. When total repayments by the consumer do not exceed the disbursed capital, no late payment interest is awarded. National judges cannot offset mutual claims without the borrower's awareness. The court must inform the consumer of the legal consequences of contract nullification and offsetting; if the consumer does not oppose these consequences, the court may complete the offset ex officio. Furthermore, in cases where loan disbursements and repayments were executed in different currencies, Polish domestic law determines whether an overarching settlement applies.
Industry reactions and legal impact
The Polish banking sector viewed the decision as an important clarification for pending and future litigation. Tadeusz Białek, President of the Polish Bank Association (ZBP), stated that the judgment strengthens predictability by consolidating claims into a single legal proceeding, which reduces legal costs for courts, consumers, and lenders while ending double fee structures for law firms.
This is an expression of common sense that the Court has been following for some time. The point is to handle settlement matters more efficiently. The CJEU also confirms that the consumer, in the event of contract invalidation, can demand only the surplus above the disbursed capital.
PKO Bank Polski noted that the ruling follows previous decisions from 23 April by confirming that consumers must return the received capital. Anna Cudna-Wagner, a legal counsel at CMS Cameron McKenna representing PKO Bank Polski, highlighted the practical implications for dispute resolution.
Particularly important is that the settlement takes into account the performance of both parties and allows for a fair, proportional settlement of mutual obligations. This is a solution that increases predictability for both banks and clients.
Domestic courts across Poland will now evaluate whether Polish procedural rules permit the nationwide implementation of ex officio offsetting in ongoing franc mortgage disputes.
