-The CJEU confirmed the correctness of determining WIBOR. He also raised the issue of information duties that banks had carried out correctly – says Tadeusz Białek, president of ZBP.
According to his interpretation of today's opinion, the spokesperson General The court may not examine the method of determining the WIBOR indicator. The method of the method goes beyond the scope of the Consumer Directive 93/13 According to ZBP, in today's opinion, the Ombudsman General decided that the permission to the national courts to verify the method of determining key reference indicators by means of an assessment of the dishonest nature of the contractual condition pursuant to Directive 93/13 would undermine a special system of managing key reference indicators by the EU legctor power of the BMR regulation.
– The bank is to provide information about the name, administrator and the effects of the indicator's increase on the loan interest rate. Banks fulfilled these obligations. The directive does not oblige the bank to directly provide information on the method of determining the indicator. According to the spokesperson, information about the method can be found in the BMR regulation, and detailed information is made available by the indicator administrator, i.e. the WSE Benchmark – says the head of the ZBP.
In an interview with Business Insider, he adds: – The CJEU clearly cut himself off from the WIBOR indicator examination as such as the method of determining, which means a powerful blow to the arguments used by law firmswhich based their lawsuits on the line of motives undermining the correctness of the WIBOR indicator – he emphasizes.
– As for the information obligations, which the spokesman talks about, they are precisely defined on the basis of EU law itself, i.e. the mortgage directive, which is implemented in Poland by the mortgage Act and banks all the obligations that the spokesman talks about, says Tadeusz Białek.
– A spokesman, contrary to what the law firms argued, does not order to inform about the method of determining the indicator, i.e. how it is constructed, what it consists ofand only about it what elements cause changes in the rate of the indicatorin other words, when the installment can increase or fall when the indicator changes. This is precisely defined in the premises of the interest rate change, which consists of the plus margin indicator. These premises are extremely specific, allowing the client to clearly orientate about the amount of reference indicators and the premises for their change, e.g. due to the amount of change in NBP interest rates – he adds.
According to ZBP, even if the conditions were considered opaque, it is not enough for their effective undermining. In order for the condition to be considered dishonest interest rate, it would have to differ from market conditions.
The President of the Union indicates that in the opinion of the spokesperson he does not see anything disturbing from the perspective of banks. – Checking the issue of the Customer's fulfillment by banks by the Customer may not be negative in the light of the implementation by banks directly resulting from the law – he emphasizes.
Law firms representing borrowers suggest that before 2018 contracts are susceptible to undermining, i.e. before the provisions on reference indicators (BMR) and the mortgage Act have entered into force.
– The court must assess the legal status it has to do at the time of concluding the contract. The claim that the court must refer to the legal status and information obligations before the entry of a mortgage or BMR directive is absurd. The court may not examine the fulfillment of information obligations under the provisions that were not currently in force. Anyway, before these provisions came into force, information obligations were determined by the Banking Act in art. 75 and banks filled them – adds the president of the ZBP.
On Thursday morning, the General spokesman of the CJEU issued an opinion on housing loans with a variable interest rate based on the WIBOR indicator. This opinion may affect the verdict, which is expected at the turn of this and next year.
The spokesman suggested that the EU Consumer Protection Directive 93/13 can be used to assess the WIBOR -based variable interest -related clause. However, he stated that the court could not examine the method of determining the WIBOR indicator.
