Establishing the cancellation of the Bank for Environmental Protection debt agreement concluded before Poland entered into the European Union and a very good oral justification for the justice on the explanation of 2 conditionings!

On 5 December 2025, the Warsaw-Prague territory Court (SSO Błażej Domagala, No. III C 2651/24) issued a judgement in which:

1. It established the nullity of the December 2001 debt agreement concluded by the reasons with the Environmental Bank
2. He judged the suspect bank for reasons of PLN 239,664,91 and CHF 213,83 together with statutory interest for the hold from 2 May 2024 until the date of payment
3. He judged the suspect for reasons of the amount of PLN 5,934

The court, of course, agreed with the argument of the proxy for reasons that the provisions of Directive EEC 93/13 besides apply to contracts concluded before Poland enters into the European Union.

However, the most interesting was the justifications concerning the explanation of 2 conditionings. The Court of First Instance agreed with the argument of the proxy for the reasons that the decision of the TEU of 19 June 2025 afraid only the proceedings of the bank and not the proceedings of the borrowers. Moreover, the Court of First Instance pointed out that there are no regulations in Polish law that would let compensation to be made ex officio. The Court besides noted that, in its view, the TEU would confirm, in consequence to further questions referred for a preliminary ruling, that the two-condiments theory, alternatively than the balance theory, applies to consumer actions. The EU Treaty always speaks in favour of consumers. The Court of First Instance besides pointed out that, following a fresh ruling by the TEU, which does not let the courts to charge consumers any costs in the proceedings of the bank, banks should consider whether there is any sense of a return lawsuit. Banks will not recover the court fees they have paid, and it is adequate that the most simple act, which is to make a deduction by the bank in consequence to a lawsuit, which banks do not do and complicate these processes themselves.

The conviction is invalid.

The case is led by Anna Wolna-Sroka from the Chancellery of Bars of Chabański Wolna-Sroka S.K.A.