On 29th April 2021, the CJEU issued the judgement in the case C-19/20 in connection with the
preliminary questions formulated by the District Court in Gdańsk in the case against of ex-BPH S.A.,
CJEU said that:
(i) it is for the national court to find that a term in a contract is unfair, even if it has been contractually
amended by those parties. Such a finding leads to the restoration of the situation that the consumer
would have been in in the absence of the term found to be unfair, except where the consumer, by
means of amendment of the unfair term, has waived such restoration by free and informed consent.
However, it does not follow from Council Directive 93/13 that a finding that the original term is unfair
would, in principle, lead to annulment of the contract, since the amendment of that term made it
possible to restore the balance between the obligations and rights of those parties arising under the
contract and to remove the defect which vitiated it.
(ii) the national court may remove only the unfair element of a term in a contract concluded between
a seller or supplier and a consumer where the deterrent objective pursued by Council Directive 93/13
is ensured by national legislative provisions governing the use of that term, provided that that element
consists of a separate contractual obligation, capable of being subject to an individual examination
of its unfair nature. At the same time, provisions of the Directive preclude the referring court from
removing only the unfair element of a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and
a consumer where such removal would amount to revising the content of that term by altering its
substance.
(iii) the consequences of a judicial finding that a term if a contract concluded between a seller or
supplier and a consumer is unfair are covered by national law and the question of continuity of the
contract should be assessed by the national court of its own motion in accordance with an objective
approach on the basis of those provisions.
(iv) the national court, finding that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and
a consumer is unfair, shall inform the consumer, in the context of the national procedural rules after
both parties have been heard, of the legal consequences entailed by annulment of the contract,
irrespective of whether the consumer is represented by a professional representative.
On 7th May 2021, the Supreme Court composed of 7 judges of the Supreme Court, issued a resolution
for which the meaning of legal principle has been granted, stating that:
1. An abusive contractual clause (art. 3851 § 1 of the Civil Code), by force of the law itself, is
ineffective to the benefit of the consumer who may consequently give conscious and free consent to
this clause and thus restore its effectiveness retroactively.
2. If without the ineffective clause the loan agreement cannot bind, the consumer and the lender
shall be eligible for separate claims for return of monetary performances made in exercising this
agreement (art. 410 § 1 in relation to art. 405 of the Civil Code). The lender may demand return of
the performance from the moment the loan agreement becomes permanently ineffective.
In this context, taking into consideration the recent negative evolution in the court verdicts regarding
FX mortgage loans, and if such trend continues, the Bank will have to regularly review and may need
to continue to increase the balance of provisions allocated to court litigations.
It can reasonably be assumed that the legal issues relating to foreign currency mortgage loans will be
further examined by the national courts within the framework of disputes considered which would
possibly result in the emergence of further interpretations, which are relevant for the assessment of
the risks associated with subject matter proceedings. This circumstance indicates the need for
constant analysis of these matters. Further request for clarification and ruling addressed to the
European Court of Justice and Polish Supreme Court have already been filed and may still be filed
with potential impact on the outcome of the court cases.