[ad_1]
The courts are drowning in lawsuits against banks by dissatisfied customers, those who have taken out loans, demanding that the banks repay the fees charged for the costs of processing the loan application. Often this is just one aspect, because the bank’s clients sue for other reasons, such as the amount of interest and the like.
The mass of lawsuits is not surprising, considering that all of Serbia is covered in posters urging citizens and the economy to sue the banks. There are tens of thousands of lawsuits in court and the fact is that there are cases in which the banks rule against the banks. Some clients have already collected the claim from the banks, that is, they have paid them the amount of the aforementioned fee for processing the loan application. In legal circles it can be heard that some banks decided to pay even after the lower court’s verdict of the lower court, without waiting for the result of the appeal they presented to the second instance court, that is, the firmness of the verdict. Because they did that? Because these are smaller amounts, it was not worth waiting for the purpose for which they would eventually lose the dispute, after which execution would follow. And that means the costs the executors would have to pay. As a reminder, banks charged the loan processing fee in percentages, two, three, four percent and even more than that, so the cost is different based on the amount of the loan collected. It also depends on whether the courts will treat it as a dispute of lesser or greater value and which court will have jurisdiction in the second instance.
Some banks have appealed to the court of second instance, and there are also those who seek a review procedure before the Court of Cassation due to the lost dispute. The lawsuits intensified after the Supreme Court of Cassation announced in May 2018 that banks were entitled to reimbursement of banking costs and services, provided the bank’s offer contained clear and unambiguous data on loan costs. So that contractual provision is null and void.
In the judgments against the banks, the courts concluded that they had no real costs and that the collection of the fee was their profit, that is, the profit. In other words, banks must explain that they incurred the costs of processing the loan application or issuing the loan and that they clearly presented it to the customer.
The Association of Banks (UBS) and the National Bank reiterate that banks have the right to collect the mentioned commissions. UBS says that the fees for loan processing costs are an obligation based on the law. The banks have no dilemma in this regard and several legal sources confirm the veracity of this attitude.
– For example, in November 2019, the European Court of Justice ruled that banks in Hungary are entitled to charge fees if they are part of the effective interest rate. In that case, this court concluded, they are not required to define in detail the services provided to the client for this fee. This is exactly the case also in Serbia, which is why all reasons state that the same conclusion can be applied to our banking sector. The banks’ decision is supported by the National Bank’s decision on the single interest calculation method, which was approved in 2006, as well as the 2011 Financial Services User Protection Law. It is very important to emphasize that customers they were familiar with the fees for bank charges before signing the contract. Before signing, the client was presented with an offer, a draft contract and a payment plan, and each of these three documents exhaustively lists the costs that are the subject of the contract, they say.
It should be noted, they add, that the island is an isolated island in terms of fees. Only in our country, there have been a significant number of lawsuits against banks, and this is not the case in Europe, that is, in neighboring countries. The question arises why this is so.
– We are deeply convinced that these actions are not in the interest of customers. They spend much of their time and money, with uncertain and often symbolic gain. In previous cases, we have seen that if the court awards one dinar to a client, another person will receive 24 dinars. Probably because of this, there are even advertisements from those who provide support in these disputes, which some lawyers even resort to, although they are not authorized to do so by law. It is also interesting that the first lawsuits regarding fees appeared in early 2017, although costs have been charged since banking existed in this area. The question is what provoked such a reaction. Compensation for bank charges also exists in international relations. When the state borrows from international institutions, compensation for expenses is also paid. So, the rate is not a national specialty, but a common relationship in banking. It can be said that demands for fees are actually a specific feature of our climate, they say at UBS.
[ad_2]
