A client recently came to my law firm after being sued by a bank. The issue is that he had previously won a court case regarding a so-called “Swiss franc loan.” The court declared the loan agreement invalid and ordered the bank to return all the money received, plus interest. Fearing debt collection and not wanting to incur the additional costs of an appeal, the bank promptly returned the money to the client and released the mortgage.
Now, however, the bank has filed a lawsuit in which it is seeking an award of additional funds in excess of the loan’s face value, on the grounds of “adjusting” the loan amount to reflect current economic conditions or indexing that amount to inflation.
The bank itself does not seem convinced of the validity of its lawsuit, as the amount specified in the complaint is significantly lower than the amount it demanded from the customer in the pre-trial demand. In my opinion, the primary purpose of this lawsuit is to exert psychological pressure on borrowers and deter them from invalidating their loan agreements. Suing borrowers who dared to rescind their agreements is intended to discourage other borrowers from boldly asserting their rights.
After reviewing the bank’s complaint, I concluded that it refuses to acknowledge the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and continues, with maniacal persistence, to try to distort reality by pretending that the borrower—even though the loan agreement is invalid—should pay the bank some form of compensation.
In its complaint, the bank is seeking to have the borrower summoned to court, while at the same time objecting to the summons of a bank representative. Of course, in my response to the complaint, I objected to the bank’s request. Since the bank has decided to take the borrower to court, the bank’s management should also appear at the hearing and answer questions regarding this case. Why should the members of the bank’s board of directors—who, after all, made the decision to initiate these proceedings—be exempt from the obligation to appear in court, while the borrower must appear there and waste his time? Furthermore, I believe that the bank’s CEO should explain to the judge why the borrower is required to pay compensation for using the loan principal, while the bank, throughout the entire term of the agreement—which is usually over a dozen years— used the borrower’s money—paid to the bank as installment payments and other fees—free of charge, invested that money, and reaped profits?
The images are from the website www.freepik.com
