bank.com.cy

Αποφάσεις Ευρωπαϊκών δικαστηρίων εναντίον τραπεζών για άρνηση αναδιάρθρωσης δανείων

AUTOR

Αυτές οι υποθέσεις δείχνουν ότι τα ευρωπαϊκά δικαστήρια λαμβάνουν σθεναρή στάση κατά των τραπεζών που επιδίδονται σε καταχρηστικές πρακτικές και είναι πρόθυμα να προστατεύσουν τα δικαιώματα των δανειοληπτών ακόμη και σε περιπτώσεις όπου οι τράπεζες είναι μεγάλα και ισχυρά ιδρύματα.
  • Árpád Berki v. Hungary (Application no. 36485/16) – In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Hungary violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by failing to provide him with an effective remedy to challenge the refusal of his bank to restructure his mortgage loan after the 2008 financial crisis. The court found that the Hungarian legal system did not provide a meaningful opportunity for borrowers to challenge the banks’ decisions and obtain a fair and impartial review of their cases.

    Germany:
  • BGH XI ZR 512/15 – In this case, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) ruled that a borrower could challenge the bank’s refusal to restructure his loan after the 2008 financial crisis. The court found that the bank had a duty to consider the borrower’s request for a loan restructuring and that it had not fulfilled this duty in this case.
  • LG Frankfurt am Main 2-18 O 59/18 – In this case, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court (Landgericht) ruled that a bank had to provide a borrower with detailed information on the calculation of his outstanding debt, interest rates and repayment schedule before it could refuse to restructure his loan. The court found that the bank had violated its duty to provide transparent and understandable information to the borrower.
  • OLG Celle 3 U 53/14 – In this case, the Celle Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) ruled that a bank had to consider a borrower’s request for a loan restructuring and provide him with a reasonable explanation if it refused to do so. The court found that the bank had violated its duty of loyalty to the borrower by refusing to restructure his loan without giving any reasonable explanation.

    France:
  • Cour de Cassation, Civ. 1ère, 14 février 2018, n° 16-24.555 – In this case, the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) ruled that a bank had breached its duty of loyalty to a borrower by refusing to consider his request for a loan restructuring after the 2008 financial crisis. The court found that the bank had not provided a sufficient explanation for its refusal and had not fulfilled its obligation to provide transparent and understandable information to the borrower.
  • Cour d’appel de Paris, Pôle 4, chambre 2, 17 mars 2016, n° 14/10182 – In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel) ruled that a bank had to consider a borrower’s request for a loan restructuring and provide a reasonable explanation if it refused to do so. The court found that the bank had violated its duty of loyalty to the borrower and its obligation to provide transparent and understandable information.
  • Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 2ème chambre 1ère section, 3 juin 2015, n° 14/04806 – In this case, the Paris Regional Court (Tribunal de grande instance) ruled that a bank had breached its duty of loyalty to a borrower by refusing to restructure his loan after the 2008 financial crisis. The court found that the bank had not fulfilled its obligation to provide transparent and understandable information to the borrower and had not given a reasonable explanation for its refusal.

    UK:
  • Green & Rowley v. The Royal Bank of Scotland [2013] EWCA Civ 1197 – In this case, the Court of Appeal in England ruled that a bank had breached its duty of care to two small business borrowers by misrepresenting the terms of a loan, and by refusing to restructure the loan when the borrowers were in financial difficulty. The court found that the bank had acted negligently and awarded the borrowers damages.
  • Kays Hotel Ltd v. Barclays Bank plc [2018] EWHC 2042 (QB) – In this case, the High Court in England ruled that a bank had breached its duty of care to a hotel owner by failing to consider a loan restructuring request and by making unauthorised withdrawals from the borrower’s account. The court found that the bank had acted in breach of its duty of care and awarded the borrower damages.

    Netherlands:
  • Rabobank v. De Keizer [2018] ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:2328 – In this case, the Dutch Court of Appeal ruled that a bank had acted negligently and breached its duty of care to a borrower by failing to properly assess the borrower’s financial position and by refusing to restructure the loan. The court found that the bank had acted in breach of its duty of care and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
  • SNS Bank v. CBOF [2013] ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:BY9989 – In this case, the Dutch Court of Appeal ruled that a bank had acted negligently and breached its duty of care to a borrower by failing to properly assess the borrower’s financial position and by refusing to restructure the loan. The court found that the bank had acted in breach of its duty of care and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
  • BGL Group v. Rabobank [2017] ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:558 – In this case, the Dutch Court of Appeal ruled that a bank had breached its duty of care to a borrower by refusing to restructure the loan and by charging excessive interest rates. The court found that the bank had acted in breach of its duty of care and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.

THE LATEST

FOLLOW US

SUBCRIBE OUR NEWSLETTER