On 26 May 2026, the territory Court in Warsaw (SSO Dorota Kalata), in the case of act No. IV C 1102/25 (previously XXIV C 108/25, XXIV C 1089/19) v Syndyk Massa Insolvency Getin Noble Bank Spółka Akcyjna w Warszawie issued a partial judgement in which it established that the mortgage debt agreement indexed to CHF concluded in June 2008 between the plaintiffs and GETIN Bank S.A. The home Bank Hypothetic Branch in Łódź based in Katowice is invalid.
In the oral recitals of the decision, the Court of First Instance stated that the judgement given in the case is simply a partial judgement and concerns only a request for the annulment of the credit agreement. The Court of First Instance divided the position presented in the ultimate Court case-law according to which, following the declaration of bankruptcy, proceedings for an action for determination may proceed due to the fact that it does not fall into bankruptcy. The procedure was so initiated and concluded with a partial judgment.
The Court of First Instance considered that the claimants had a legal interest in seeking the annulment of the contract, since on their side there was a legal uncertainty resulting, inter alia, from the long-term nature of the credit agreement and the collateralisation of the mortgage. In the judgement of the Court of First Instance, the annulment of the contract opens the anticipation for the borrowers to remove the mortgage from the land register, which further justifies the legal interest in bringing an action for determination.
In mention to the claims submitted, the Court of First Instance pointed out that the plaintiffs sought first and foremost the annulment of the full contract, and only possibly referred to the repeal of the legal effects of the declarations of will submitted. However, the Court of First Instance held that the request for annulment of the contract was the most far-reaching request and was first assessed. Since the main request was taken into account, there was no request to identify further possible claims.
As regards the assessment of the credit agreement itself, the Court of First Instance shared the argument of the plaintiff and indicated that the provisions on the indexation mechanics and the conversion clauses were contrary to the principles of social coexistence and distorted the contractual balance of the parties. The Court of First Instance noted that the borrowers in the case as consumers were not decently informed of the actual amount of exchange rate risks and the economical consequences of the contract. In the view of the Court of First Instance, consumers were not full aware that the amount of the work and the credit balance could change depending on the Swiss franc rate established by the bank.
The Court of First Instance besides stated that the contract contained an abusive clause on indexation and conversion mechanisms. At the same time, he pointed out that the removal of these provisions does not let for further performance of the contract, as this would lead to the inability to implement it. The Court besides stressed that the plaintiff did not agree to proceed to apply the agreement after the unlawful provisions had been eliminated.
The conviction is invalid.
The case is led by Anna Wolna-Sroka from the Chancellery of the Lawyers of Chabański Wolna-Sroka S.K.A.
