Η Themis—το πιο “σκληρό” και “αλύπητο” ταμείο που ξεγέννησε η Τράπεζα Κύπρου— και τα άλλα ταμεία, “λαμβάνουν ιδιοκτησία» των σπιτιών και ακινήτων των δανειοληπτών με παράνομα και καταχρηστικά μέσα. Διαβάστε πιο κάτω Ευρωπαϊκες δικαστικές αποφάσεις εναντίον των Τραπεζών.
Αρχικά η σύμβαση του δανειολήπτη είναι μεταξύ αυτού και της Τράπεζας, οπότε οποιαδήποτε μεταβίβαση είναι παράνομη. Ειδικά αν δεν ενημερωθεί ο δανειολήπτης και δώσει την έγκριση του καθώς και επίσης αν δεν του έχει δοθεί το δικαίωμα να αγοράσει την περιουσία του στην ίδια τιμή.
Για τα πιο πάνω και πολλά άλλα υπάρχουν σωρεία υποθέσεων σε επίπεδο Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαίου, το οποίο υπερέχει και του Κυπριακού συντάγματος και της Κυπριακής νομοθεσίας και στις οποίες αγωγές οι Τράπεζες και τα Ταμεία έχουν καταδικαστεί για καταχρηστική συμπεριφορά.
Αποφάσεις για πώληση στεγαστικού δανείου δανειολήπτη σε τρίτους με έκπτωση, χωρίς να προσφέρεται στον δανειολήπτη η δυνατότητα να αγοράσει το δάνειο στην ίδια τιμή:
Spanish Supreme Court, Case No. 669/2017 – In this case, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that a bank had acted in bad faith by selling a borrower’s mortgage loan to a third party at a discount, without offering the borrower the opportunity to purchase the loan at the same price. The court found that the bank had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
Italian Supreme Court, Case No. 2482/2005 – In this case, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that a bank had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by selling a borrower’s mortgage loan to a third party without the borrower’s consent, and by failing to provide adequate notice of the sale. The court ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
Spanish Supreme Court, Case No. 677/2014 – In this case, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that a bank had acted in bad faith by selling a borrower’s mortgage loan to a third party at a discount, without offering the borrower the opportunity to purchase the loan at the same price. The court found that the bank had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
Spanish Supreme Court, Case No. 705/2015 – In this case, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that a bank had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by selling a borrower’s mortgage loan to a third party at a discount, without offering the borrower the opportunity to purchase the loan at the same price. The court found that the bank had failed to act in the borrower’s best interests, and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
Spanish Supreme Court, Case No. 197/2018 – In this case, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that a bank had acted in bad faith by selling a borrower’s mortgage loan to a third party at a discount, without offering the borrower the opportunity to purchase the loan at the same price. The court found that the bank had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
Germany – In a case before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in 2014, the court ruled that a bank had breached its duty of care towards a borrower by selling the borrower’s loan to a third party without first offering the borrower the opportunity to purchase the loan at the same price. The court found that the bank had not acted in good faith towards the borrower, and ordered the bank to pay damages.
France – In a case before the Court of Cassation in 2015, the court ruled that a bank had acted in bad faith by selling a borrower’s loan to a third party at a discount, without offering the borrower the opportunity to purchase the loan at the same price. The court found that the bank had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and ordered the bank to pay damages to the borrower.
Germany – In a case before the Regional Court of Stuttgart in 2016, the court ruled that a bank had breached its duty of care towards a borrower by selling the borrower’s loan to a third party at a discount, without first offering the borrower the opportunity to purchase the loan at the same price. The court found that the bank had not acted in good faith towards the borrower, and ordered the bank to pay damages.
Παραβίαση του δικαιώματος ενημέρωσης
και συναίνεσης του δανειολήπτη:
C-186/16, Banco de Sabadell SA v. Maria Eugenia Cordero Blanco: In this case, the CJEU held that the assignment of a mortgage loan to another entity may be illegal if the assignment violates the borrower’s rights under national consumer protection laws. The court found that the borrower’s right to be informed of the identity of the creditor had been violated by the assignment of the loan without her knowledge or consent.
C-618/10, Banco Español de Crédito SA v. Camino: In this case, the CJEU held that a bank’s assignment of a mortgage loan to another entity may be illegal if the borrower’s right to information is violated, such as where the borrower is not informed of the transfer of the loan. The court found that the borrower’s right to information had been violated because she had not been informed of the assignment of the loan.
C-333/14, Ana Isabel Rodríguez Ramírez v. Bankia SA: The CJEU held that the transfer of a loan without the borrower’s consent may be illegal if the transfer violates the borrower’s right to fair contractual terms under EU consumer protection laws. The court found that the transfer of the loan had led to a change in the interest rate and other contractual terms without the borrower’s consent, which constituted an unfair contractual term.
C-96/16, Banco Primus SA v. Juan Carlos Guerra Pastor: In this case, the CJEU held that the assignment of a mortgage loan may be illegal if the borrower’s right to information is violated, such as where the borrower is not informed of the transfer of the loan. The court found that the borrower’s right to information had been violated because he had not been informed of the transfer of the loan to a new creditor.
Germany: In a decision by the German Federal Court of Justice in 2015 (case reference XI ZR 98/14), the court held that the assignment of a loan to another creditor without the borrower’s consent may be illegal if the loan agreement contains a clause that requires the borrower’s consent for such an assignment. The court found that the borrower’s right to withhold consent was protected under German law, and that the assignment of the loan without the borrower’s consent constituted a breach of contract.
Italy: In a decision by the Italian Supreme Court in 2019 (case reference 2903/2019), the court held that the transfer of a mortgage loan to another creditor without the borrower’s consent may be illegal if the transfer violates the borrower’s right to be informed of the assignment of the loan. The court found that the borrower’s right to information was protected under Italian law, and that the assignment of the loan without the borrower’s knowledge or consent was therefore illegal.
Spain: In a decision by the Spanish Supreme Court in 2018 (case reference 555/2018), the court held that the assignment of a mortgage loan to another entity without the borrower’s consent may be illegal if the transfer violates the borrower’s right to information under Spanish consumer protection laws. The court found that the borrower’s right to information had been violated because he had not been informed of the transfer of the loan to a new creditor.
Right to be informed and right to challenge assignment of loan.
Aziz v. Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa) (Case C-415/11) – In this case, the CJEU ruled that a borrower must be informed of the assignment of their mortgage loan to a third party and must be able to challenge the validity of that assignment.
Banco Primus SA v. Lourdes Maria Puyol Mateo (Case C-421/14) – In this case, the CJEU held that a borrower must be notified of the transfer of their mortgage loan to a third party and must be given the opportunity to object to the transfer if they have legitimate reasons for doing so.
Crédit Agricole SA v. Alexandre Antoine (Case C-190/16) – In this case, the CJEU ruled that a borrower must be notified of the transfer of their loan to a third party and must be given the opportunity to object to the transfer if they have legitimate reasons for doing so.
De Vijver v. ABN AMRO Bank NV (Case C-47/14) – In this case, the CJEU held that a borrower must be notified of the transfer of their loan to a third party and must be given the opportunity to object to the transfer if they have legitimate reasons for doing so.
Widlitzki v. Landesbank Berlin AG (Case C-10/08) – In this case, the CJEU held that a borrower must be informed of the assignment of their mortgage loan to a third party and must be able to challenge the validity of that assignment.
Banque Populaire Occitane v. Dedieu (Case C-332/12) – In this case, the CJEU held that a borrower must be notified of the transfer of their loan to a third party and must be given the opportunity to object to the transfer if they have legitimate reasons for doing so.
Bücker v. Eurohyp (Case C-163/99) – In this case, the CJEU held that a borrower must be informed of the assignment of their mortgage loan to a third party and must be able to challenge the validity of that assignment.
Banco Español de Crédito SA v. Camino (Case C-618/10) – In this case, the CJEU held that a borrower must be notified of the transfer of their mortgage loan to a third party and must be given the opportunity to object to the transfer if they have legitimate reasons for doing so.
