Polish bank profits remain uncertain after CJEU ruling

Subject CJEU ruling on Swiss-franc mortgages. Significance A long-anticipated ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on October 3 opens the way for the annulment of foreign currency (FX)-linked mortgage contracts in Poland whose terms have been deemed to be unfair by local courts. It is a partial victory for the mortgage holders. Impacts The ruling will shield banks from the immediate conversion of loans into zloty-based contracts at a favourable exchange rate for borrowers. The ruling is non-binding and merely provides guidance for Polish courts. Polish bank stocks and the zloty have fared well since the CJEU announced its decision.

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 346-373
Author(s):  
Bartosz Ziemblicki ◽  
Mateusz Lewandowski

Abstract In recent years, the Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a number of judgments addressing the issue of consumer protection in connection with the use of unfair terms by banks in loan agreements indexed with a foreign currency exchange rate. Most of them have concerned issues of exchange rate risk and exchange rate differences between the purchase and sale rates of a given currency applied by the bank. This article analyzes the recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Dziubak case, which was initiated by referring questions for a preliminary ruling by a Polish court. The article’s purpose is to assess the position taken by the cjeu in this respect and its significance for consumers in Poland. Particular attention was paid to the considerations with regard to the possibility of replacing unfair provisions with general provisions and assessing the consumer’s awareness of the consequences of declaring a contract invalid. The aim is to examine the issues that were dealt with by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Dziubak case, including – in particular – the answer to the question of whether the issues discussed by the cjeu had already been considered in its previous jurisprudence and whether it presents new, previously unknown legal consequences of the inclusion of unfair contract terms in loan agreements.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-220
Author(s):  
Giulio Allevato ◽  
Fernando Pastor-Merchante

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Google Ireland case turned on the compatibility with the rules on free movement of some of the administrative arrangements put in place by Hungary in order to administer its controversial advertisement tax (namely, the obligation to register and the penalties attached to the failure to comply with that obligation). The preliminary ruling offers some interesting insights on the way in which the Court assesses the compatibility with the freedom to provide services of national administrative arrangements aimed at ensuring the effective collection of taxes. This is a topical issue in the context of the recent efforts made by Member States to tax the digital economy more effectively.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Shuleva ◽  

The digital society presupposes legal regulation of e-business management. To the extent that this is a state in the process of being created, e-government opens the way to ambiguities and creates heterogeneity. The lack of legal regulation of e-business management can be filled through the request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union.


Author(s):  
Daniel HALBERSTAM

Abstract This article provides a constitutionally grounded understanding of the vexing principle of ‘national procedural autonomy’ that haunts the vindication of EU law in national court. After identifying tensions and confusion in the debate surrounding this purported principle of ‘autonomy’, the Article turns to the foundational text and structure of Union law to reconstruct the proper constitutional basis for deploying or supplanting national procedures and remedies. It further argues that much of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may be considered through the lens of ‘prudential avoidance’, ie the decision to avoid difficult constitutional questions surrounding the principle of conferral. As the last Part shows, a constitutional understanding of ‘national procedural authority’—not ‘autonomy’—helps clear up some persistent puzzles, and provides critical guidance for when deference to national procedures and remedies is appropriate, and when such deference is misplaced. Comparative references inform the argument along the way.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Halberstam

The Court of Justice of the European Union has arrived! Gone are the days of hagiography, when in the eyes of the academy and informed observers the Court could do no wrong. The pendulum has finally swung the other way. The judicial darling, if there is one today, is Strasbourg, not Luxembourg. Not hours had passed before the Court's 258-paragraph longOpinion 2/13on the Draft Agreement on EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights was condemned as “exceptionally poor.” Critical voices have mounted steadily ever since, leading to nothing short of widespread “outrage.”


Author(s):  
Arthur Poon

Abstract This article calls for a reassessment of the methodology in determining the place of contractual performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast. The first part of the article deals with Article 7(1)(a). It argues that in light of the adoption of autonomous linking factors under Article 7(1)(b), more types of contracts presently not covered within the ambits of Article 7(1)(b) should centralise jurisdiction at the places of performance of their characteristic obligations. The second part of the article considers the way Article 7(1) operates when there are multiple places of performance under the contract. The test devised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard is not only difficult to apply, but the application of the test also often does not guarantee a close connection between the claim and the court taking jurisdiction. This article argues that when a claim is made in respect of a contractual obligation to be performed in more than one Member State, Article 4 should be applied instead of Article 7(1).


2019 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
ROMAN PETROV

У статті досліджено вплив Суду Європейського Союзу (ЄС) на впровадження і застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС, що викликало безпрецедентні політичні, економічні та правові реформи в Україні. Зокрема, розглядаються конституційні виклики, які постали перед державою під час виконання Угоди в правовій системі. Крім того, досліджено два питання. Перше – ефективне впровадження та застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС в українській правовій системі. Друге – сумісність і відповідність Угоди Конституції України. Проаналізовано останні політичні та правові події в Україні через призму ефективної реалізації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і зростання проєвропейського правового активізму в державі. На закінчення стверджується, що Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС посилює пристосованість національного конституційного устрою до цілей досягнення європейської інтеграції та застосування європейських спільних цінностей в Україні. Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС створила стійку інституційну та правову основу для застосування acquis ЄС (правового доробку ЄС), включаючи прецедентне право ЄС та комплексне законодавче наближення між законодавством України та ЄС. Однак інституційні реформи, які вже відбулися, не можна вважати цілком достатніми. Верховній Раді України не вдалося запровадити основні та процедурні засади для застосування та впровадження Угоди в правовий порядок України. Однак ця прогалина частково заповнюється зростаючим судовим активізмом в Україні. Вітчизняні судді вже почали посилатися на Угоду про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і відповідні частини acquis ЄС у своїх рішеннях, тим самим закладаючи основу для регулярного застосування загальних принципів права ЄС у процесі виконання й імплементації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС.


2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document