There is a judgment of the CJEU. The business around free credit sanctions will not lose its foundations

Most cases brought to court based on the sanction of a free loan are the result of a contract concluded between the consumer and a professional “intermediary”. However, the legal business could lose ground if, for example, the courts had to examine whether the assignment did not contain prohibited clauses.

At the end of April 2025, the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU was published in the case of “Zwrotybankowe.pl versus PKO BP”. This is one of the important threads in business development, which was born by the so-called free loan sanction. Let us remind you that it is based on a fragment of the Consumer Credit Act. From the lender's point of view, it has a simple structure – if statutory obligations are neglected, the borrower may repay the loan without interest or other costs. Such negligence may include, for example, omitting important elements in the loan agreement or violating the rules specifying the maximum amount of loan costs.

Over the years, the article of the Act was hardly used. However, it was noticed by law firms specializing in disputes with financial institutions, and a new segment of the dynamically developing “market” was created. Such entities usually purchase receivables and the resulting claims, and then try to prove in court that the bank has neglected its disclosure obligations.

The case analyzed in the CJEU is the result of the action of this type of “intermediary”. The consumer transferred to Zwrotybankowe.pl the right to demand from PKO Bank all amounts due to this consumer as part of transactions resulting from the application of free loan sanctions. In return, the company was to receive 50 percent. value of recovered claims and trial costs. The bank demanded that the lawsuit be dismissed, arguing that the assignment was ineffective due to the nature of the obligation. The issue of the intermediary-consumer relationship raised doubts in the Warsaw court.

What were the questions asked by the Polish court?

Two questions referred to the Court of Justice of the EU by the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście concerned:

1. Issues admissibility of disposal by the consumer rights (due to the consumer) to e.g. a law firm that is not a consumer.
2. The scope of ex officio examination of the conditions contained in the contract. The court wanted to know whether, when examining unfair terms in a contract (e.g. a loan contract) should also examine the assignment agreement between the consumer and the company in this respectwhich acquired the receivable.

A positive answer to the second question would mean that, in the context of free loan sanctions, the relationships between consumers and various entities creating the “legal business” surrounding disputes with banks will also come under the microscope. This could mean a lot of confusion, especially for entities that have been negligent in regulating, for example, the issue of remuneration for the SKD use service.

The verdict is favorable for the law firm

On October 9, we learned the verdict in the case C-80/24. IN first issue other examples of similar doubts resolved by the CJEU regarding the admissibility of assigning claims for delayed or canceled flights were cited. 'In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question must be that Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that he is not in the way provisions of national law enabling the consumer disposal to a third party who is not a consumer of a claim based on an infringement of a right conferred on him by the provisions of national law implementing that Directive” – we read in the justification of the judgment.

The disposal of credit rights meets the objective of the Consumer Credit Directive to ensure a high level of consumer protection. “It saves them (consumers – editor's note) difficulties and costs that could discourage them from pursuing claims against a given entrepreneur on their own,” the CJEU pointed out.

In response to second question The CJEU answers, in line with its earlier opinion, that the national court is not obliged to examine ex officio the unfair nature of the term of the receivables assignment agreement concluded by the consumer. This applies to situations where the dispute pending before this court between the company that is the assignee and the entrepreneur concerns not the assignment agreement, but the consumer's receivables towards this entrepreneur.

The tribunal's decisions can be considered favorable for entities specializing in taking over rights regarding disputed receivables.

Source: