Don't know the Frankish

The question is whether the bank can keep the payment to the consumer while settling an invalid contract before returning his claim. The ultimate Court gathering announced for mid-January was postponed to February.

Questions await

As we have learned, it was asked, among another things, to exclude the referee's referee, which the another line-up did not agree to, and to consider whether to combine the question asked by the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk with a akin earlier question by a financial spokesperson, which the referee found inappropriate due to any differences in cases.

SA in the individual of the justice Przemysław Banasika asks the SN whether the frank debt is of the nature of a common agreement in the light of Article 497 KC in conjunction with Article 496 KC. In the event of a affirmative reply, whether it will be effective to lodge a plea of detention in the event of the annulment of the contract.

In this case, the territory court took into account the demands of the Frankish. He established that the debt agreement was null and void, and ruled for it from the bank PLN 82 1000 and CHF 26 thousand. The Bank has appealed and declared that, in the event of the maintenance of this judgment, it requests that its benefit be retained on its behalf pursuant to Article 496 in conjunction with Article 497 of the KC, specifying the alleged right of detention until the bank has been offered a refund of PLN 230 1000 paid to the creditor, or a safety of the claim for reimbursement.

The SA advocates that the interest-bearing franc credit is simply a common agreement, so specified retention is acceptable (CZP III 89/22).

A akin question with broad justification was raised by the Kraków SO (Judge Anna Nowak, III CZP 152/22/).

A financial agent has previously requested the resolution of this issue, according to which the bank credit agreement is bilaterally mandatory but is not reciprocal and, consequently, the bank debt cannot be subject to the right of retention referred to in Article 496 KC in the event of a cancellation of the contract, due to the fact that the contractual provisions are contrary to good manners or importantly detrimental to the interests of the consumer.

A akin question, only for a preliminary ruling, referred the Warsaw court in January 2022 to the TEU.

In conclusion, taking into account the claim of retention raised by the bank on a abroad currency debt means that the borrower will gotta settle the capital before he can settle his claims.

Time, stress and costs

– I believe that this mechanics should besides apply to the bank's claim for reimbursement of the cost of capital. In this case, taking into account the plea (right) of detention should prompt the borrowers to enter into agreements which full settle common claims resulting from the granting of the credit and the bringing of proceedings by the borrower. It generates time, stress and considerable costs. The best solution in my opinion is to conclude a settlement with the bank – says lawyer Wojciech Wandzel from the Chancellery of Kubas, Kos, Gałkowski.