CJEU limits interest claims for Swiss franc borrowers while Advocate General pushes for broader judicial scrutiny

CJEU limits interest claims for CHF borrowers

The CJEU ruled that Polish franc borrowers are entitled to statutory interest for delay only after they clearly state the exact amount they are claiming. The ruling concerned a couple who took a CHF mortgage from Santander Bank Polska in 2008 and later sought contract invalidation and refund. The court found that requiring a specific amount allows the bank to assess the claim and does not overly burden consumers, who can verify payments via account history or a bank certificate.

The CJEU confirmed national provisions that the call for payment must contain a specific amount demanded.

Advocate General calls for full judicial scrutiny

In a separate consumer credit case, Advocate General Dean Spielmann issued an opinion that national courts must examine all informational requirements in a credit agreement on their own motion, not just those raised by the consumer. The case, referred by the Białystok District Court, involves a loan from 2017 and the sanction of free credit (SKD) – which can strip the bank of interest and fees if disclosure rules are breached. Rzecznik Finansowy Michał Ziemiak welcomed the opinion as pro-consumer.

Its pro-consumer character confirms the importance that EU law attaches to information obligations towards consumers.

Lawyer mec. Pilawska said that if the final ruling follows the opinion, it could require judges to actively scrutinize dozens of dormant SKD cases, even beyond consumers' specific complaints.

Divergent directions for both sides

Legal experts see a contrast between the two Thursday developments. While the CJEU ruling on interest arrears sets a clear boundary for banks – interest only after a precisely quantified demand – the Advocate General's opinion, if adopted, would expand courts' duties in consumer credit disputes. Anna Cudna-Wagner, a legal counsel, noted that the interest ruling aligns with existing Polish jurisprudence but that the AG opinion marks a potential shift. The Rzecznik Finansowy stressed that the opinion is not binding, and the final ruling may still take months.

Background of the two cases

The interest ruling originated from a Warsaw regional court case. In September 2008, a couple took a CHF mortgage worth 50,000 zł from Santander Bank Polska for home construction. In July 2022, they submitted a reklamacja, claiming the contract was invalid due to unfair currency clauses, and demanded a refund of payments. After the bank refused, they sued in November 2022 for 54,200 zł with interest. The court referred the question of when late-payment interest should run.

The SKD case began with a 2017 consumer loan. The Białystok court asked the CJEU three questions, including whether courts must examine the entire contract for violations. The Advocate General addressed only the first question, on court duty.

Reactions and practical impact

The Polish Bank Association (ZBP) welcomed the interest ruling as confirming national law and said it prevents consumers from claiming interest from an ambiguous complaint date. Consumer groups and some lawyers hailed the AG opinion, saying it could protect borrowers who made incomplete claims. Pilawska observed that even consumers represented by lawyers would benefit, as the court's obligation does not depend on the quality of legal argument. The final CJEU judgment in the SKD case is expected in the coming months, and the Rzecznik Finansowy will monitor proceedings.