On 1 October 2025, justice Michał Maja of the territory Court of Warsaw XXVIII of the civilian Division referred questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (TEU) on the case pending by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case No XXVIII C 22884/22). The case concerns an issue that may be applicable to thousands of borrowers in receipt of claims in connection with the agreements on frank loans, as our expert – legal advisor – writes about Cornel Kamienik.
The case was initiated by a bank which had applied against the borrowers with a claim for reimbursement of the amount of the debt capital paid, together with statutory interest for the delay, after the borrowers had previously brought an action against the bank for annulment of the credit agreement indexed to CHF (the Swiss franc). The procedure for the annulment of the contract has not yet been completed.
In consequence to the bank's lawsuit, our Clients indicated that claims for payment of statutory interest for hold are unjustified under EU law, in peculiar the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts.
Content of the question
The Warsaw territory Court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to resolve 2 key issues:
- Should Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality be interpreted as precluding national rules which let the bank to analyse statutory interest against the borrower for delaying the amount of capital;
- In the event of a negative answer to the above question, whether these provisions let the bank to request statutory interest for hold besides for the period before the date of the final judgement declaring the credit agreement invalid.
Pending a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice, the national court suspended the proceedings.
Meaning of the question
The issue raised by the territory Court is systemic in nature. It concerns a situation in which the bank, after considering the debt agreement to be invalid due to unfair provisions, comes from the consumer not only a refund of the capital paid but besides additional interest payments for the delay.
The doubts of the court stem from the fact that granting specified a right to the bank could weaken the deterrent effect of Directive 93/13/EEC and discourage consumers from exercising their rights before courts for fear of additional costs. At the same time, the court saw the request to keep balance between the parties and respect the rule of proportionality.
Importance to borrowers
Our Client's case is precedent and may affect future case law in cases relating to settlements between borrowers and banks after the cancellation of the FFT agreements. The judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU will be crucial to find whether banks can claim interest from consumers who benefit from protection under EU law and since, if any, specified interest may be charged.
Our law firm, representing the borrowers, welcomes the decision of the court to mention a preliminary question to the TEU. We believe that the Court's ruling will let for a clear definition of the limits of the powers of banks erstwhile credit agreements have been declared void and will strengthen consumer protection in disputes with financial institutions.
This is another example in which Polish courts recognise the request to apply EU law in order to guarantee full effectiveness of consumer protection, which is part of the established case law line of the TEU on frank loans.
Also check our tab: Claims for capital use
