bank.com.cy

Αποφάσεις Ευρωπαϊκών δικαστηρίων εναντίον τραπεζών για καταχρηστικές συμπεριφορές και ρήτρες.

AUTOR

Όπως αποτυχία παροχής σαφών και κατανοητών πληροφοριών σχετικά με το κόστος και τους κινδύνους που συνδέονται με ένα στεγαστικό δάνειο και με τη συμπερίληψη καταχρηστικής ρήτρας που επέτρεπε στην τράπεζα να τροποποιήσει μονομερώς το επιτόκιο.
  • Aziz v. Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (CatalunyaCaixa) (Case C-415/11) – In this case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the Spanish bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide sufficient information to the borrower about the mortgage loan they were signing, and by including an unfair interest rate clause in the loan agreement.
  • Kásler and Káslerné Rábai v. OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt (Case C-26/13) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Hungarian bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the risks associated with a foreign currency mortgage loan, and by failing to adequately inform the borrowers about the risks of exchange rate fluctuations.
  • Unicaja Banco SA v. Mateo López (Case C-125/18) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Spanish bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the costs and risks associated with a mortgage loan, and by including an unfair clause that allowed the bank to unilaterally modify the interest rate.
  • Banco Primus SA v. Jesús Gutiérrez García (Case C-421/14) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Spanish bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the costs and risks associated with a mortgage loan, and by including an unfair clause that allowed the bank to unilaterally modify the interest rate.
  • Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others v. Banca Romaneasca SA (Case C-186/16) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Romanian bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the costs and risks associated with a mortgage loan, and by including an unfair clause that allowed the bank to unilaterally modify the interest rate.
  • Essentia Vitae Srl and Others v. Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA (Case C-568/18) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Italian bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the risks associated with an investment product, and by misleading the borrowers about the actual value of the investment.
  • Árpád Kásler and Hajnalka Káslerné Rábai v. OTP Bank Nyrt (Case C-308/14) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Hungarian bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the risks associated with a foreign currency mortgage loan, and by failing to adequately inform the borrowers about the risks of exchange rate fluctuations.
  • Banco Santander SA v. María Luz Murciano Quintero (Case C-452/18) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Spanish bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the costs and risks associated with a mortgage loan, and by including an unfair clause that allowed the bank to unilaterally modify the interest rate.
  • Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others v. CaixaBank SA (Case C-154/15) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Spanish bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the costs and risks associated with a mortgage loan, and by including an unfair clause that allowed the bank to unilaterally modify the interest rate.
  • Giovanni Potente and Others v. Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA (Case C-613/15) – In this case, the ECJ held that the Italian bank had engaged in abusive practices by failing to provide clear and understandable information about the risks associated with an investment product, and by misleading the borrowers about the actual value of the investment.
  • Barclays Bank plc v. O’Brien (1993) UKHL 6 – In this case, the UK House of Lords held that a bank had breached its duty of care to a borrower by failing to explain the nature and effect of a mortgage transaction.

THE LATEST

FOLLOW US

SUBCRIBE OUR NEWSLETTER