On 26 February 2026, the Court of Appeal in Warsaw (President of the SSA Małgorzata Borkowska, SSA Ksenia Sobolewska-Filcek, SSA Beata Waś,) in Case No. VI ACa 304/24 issued a judgement in which, as a consequence of the appeal of the defendant's insolvency admin Getin Noble Bank S.A. in bankruptcy with its registered office in Warsaw after the judgement of the territory Court in Warsaw of 14 January 2022, act No. XXV C 2274/19:
He dismissed the appeal of the syndik in relation to the decision in the first paragraph of the judgement (concerning the annulment of the contract).
In the oral recitals of the ruling, the Court of First Instance stated that, as regards the facts of the case, the Court of First Instance considered the decision of the territory Court to be full correct. The Court of Appeal full divided the legal assessment concerning the abuzzability of the index clauses contained in the credit agreement. There was no uncertainty that the plaintiffs had a relation with the bank as consumers, which entitles them to protection under Directive 93/13 EEC.
The Court of First Instance considered that the plaintiffs were not duly informed by the bank of the monetary hazard associated with the construction of the CHF-indexed loan. The information to be provided to the consumer should be precise and illustrate the real hazard of rising the balance of debt in the event of a currency change. The provisions referring to the exchange rate tables of the bank and the currency hazard itself have been considered as unlawful contractual (absorbent) provisions, which, according to the settled case law of the TEU and the ultimate Court, leads to the inability to proceed to apply the agreement after the elimination of those clauses.
The Court of First Instance besides confirmed that the plaintiffs had a legal interest within the meaning of Article 189(c) in seeking the annulment of the contract. The determining decision is essential for the full legal protection of borrowers in the case of a multi-annual relationship, as the claim for payment alone would not definitely explain the legal situation of the parties and would not, for example, constitute an independent basis for removing the mortgage.
The conviction is final.
Anna Wolna-Sroka from the Chabański Free-Sroka S.K.A. Attorney's Office led the case.
