As Agnieszka Sobczyk notes, a legal advisor from K&L Legal, a judgment in case C-396/24 was hailed as her success as her success by each of the pseudo-branch disputes.
-Bank's proxies clearly indicate that the CJEU ordered the departure from the theory of two condition, which would in fact mean a significant change in case-law, because in accordance with the judgment of the CJEU C-520/21, each of the parties to the dispute (and consumer and bank) could demand interest for delay on their receivables regardless of the other party's preservation-explains MEC consumers.
Does this mean that the balance theory is coming back? Legal advisor Damian Nartowski from the office of Wnlegal, believes that to some extent, but in full – he is not convinced. -It also seems to me that the C-396/24 judgment will not completely eliminate the “risk of two trials” (from a lawsuit of the Consumer and the Bank of the Bank), especially looking at the fact that in 2025 claims may be barred from contracts challenged in 2022-he adds.
On the other hand, consumers' proxies indicate an increase in their protection and stopping lawsuits sent by banks at the same time questioning the invalidity of the contract, i.e. as SLAPP francs define.
As with the judgments of the CJEU, there is no clear answer
MEC. Agnieszka Sobczak believes that the case is more complex. In her opinion, today it is impossible to clearly accept the line that the courts will follow. – We will work to do again and probably … Everyone will interpret the sentence in their direction – says Sobczak.
Also legal advisor Damian Nartowski, also representing borrowers, is not convinced that the CJEU has changed the current jurisprudence by 180 degrees. – partly for sure. Or in full? Time will tell – assesses Nartowski. In his opinion, the judgment will have different significance in various procedural situations. – For some proceedings, it will not matter, for others it will become an important element, especially in cases of consumer lawsuits. You will have to answer the questions whether and how to modify the positions – explains Nartowski.
As lawyers indicate, the legal question was asked in a specific factual state.
Two cases, one judgment of the CJEU
The CJEU considered two combined matters in one preliminary question. In the first case, consumers did not demand the reimbursement of all payments, and in the second they made a deduction statement. In parallel, they charged the hit, and he was withdrawn by the proxy. It is worth explaining that when two sides of the dispute, regardless of whether it is a company or an individual, at the same time have a debt to each other, each of them can deduct their claim with the debt of the other party, as long as it is money or things of the same quality. As a result of deduction, both claims discontinue each other to the amount of lower debt.
– The fact that the entrepreneur has demanding the refund of the amount paid in the mutual lawsuit (in response to the lawsuit) to take into account the settlement is unfortunately not fully clarified by the CJEU (whether because of the offsetting or as ensuring that the entrepreneur will be discouraged from introducing such conditions in contracts offered to consumers, or as a new one in the way of settling the parties on the basis of directive 93) – explains Sobczyk.
Polish courts will have a new obligation
One thing, however, is certain, as Nartowski notes. – Once again, the CJEU affects not only national substantive law, but interferes with a civil procedure. He interferes with the process because he orders to examine certain facts ex officio, checking how much to pay off the borrower if the bank demands 200,000. PLN, how much did the borrower repaid? The C-396/24 judgment shows that in the case of a bank claim against the borrower (borrower), repayments made by the borrower should take into account (without having to raise a separate charge). So, for example, the bank sucks 200,000 PLN, the consumer repaid 250 thousand zloty. The question is whether the bank should receive 200,000 PLN or nothing? The judgment shows that nothing – explains Nartowski.
MEC. Sobczyk points out that the Court did not refer to the request of consumers based on the reimbursement of all funds (parallel case). – Not only that, the applause for the position on the resolution of disputes of the consumer – the entrepreneur would mean a significant weakening of consumer protection who have concluded a contract in PLN and currently question its validity due to the abusiveness of the principles of change of interest. After all, every such lawsuit to award some of the payments would be dismissed if the total amount of payments were lower than the amount paid, and this was probably not what Directive 93 and the CJEU in case -law – adds Sobczyk.
MEC. Nartowski explains this on a specific example whether the CJEU's decision will apply to consumer lawsuits against banks. – For example: the consumer suits 250,000 PLN (so much repaid), and the bank made available 200,000. zloty. So how much should a consumer receive 50,000 PLN or 250 thousand zloty? Is statutory interest for delay? – explains Nartowski. In his opinion, and that the judgment of the CJEU C-396/24 does not prejudge the answer, especially in the light of other CJEU decisions, even C-520/21 or C-287/22.
