Loading Text-to-Speech…
No more suffering thousands of borrowers it seems that the clear writing of the decision of the Plenary Assembly puts it Supreme Court which gave breath to those who have succumbed to Katseli law by court order. But who does the judicial crisis concern? Will it be retroactive and what are the next steps for borrowers?
It is possible that the plenary session of the supreme court had decided since last February – according to information from the conference – that interest should be calculated on the monthly installment and not on the total capital of the debt, but four months were required for the publication of the decision, with the result banks and collection agencies to “overlook” it, waiting for it to be written off, while the borrowers continue to pay excessive doses.
The publication of the full reasoning of the decision – which is expected even within the day – definitively closes the debate around the controversial issue of interest and paves the way for the application of an interpretation that favors them borrowers.
The first question that the court decision answers is the method of calculation in panatokiswhere the Areopagites decided by a majority (35-12) that the calculation in compounding of the red loans of the Katseli law it must be done on the monthly installment – as requested by the borrowers – and not on the capital of the debt, as requested by banks and funds.
Information from “K” reports that this decision will concern only those who have appealed to the courts. However, borrowers who have not done so will be able to do so based on the issued decision.
It is recalled that this is a pilot trial decision and primarily concerns the specific parties of the specific case, but in terms of the legal issue that was resolved, the decision is binding for the substantive courts, which adjudicate the remaining pending cases in which the same issue is raised.
The way to courts “shows” the Supreme Court regarding its issue retroactivity of the decisioni.e. if the decision will also include the high installments that have been paid to the banks in previous years in the manner of calculating the interest on the capital of the debt.
The court decision was published – The way is opened for the borrowers to claim money with lawsuits for unjust enrichment against banks and funds.
The same source notes in “K” that the decision does not include any judgment of the court on the issue of retroactivity, as this was not examined because it was not included in the pre-trial question of the former Ioannina Magistrate’s Court that was sent to the Supreme Court for resolution.
In fact, the case was introduced to the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court following an application by the borrower B.T. against the company named (…), with which she requested the interpretation of the decision No. 16/2012 of the Magistrate’s Court that had been issued in her case.
It was requested to determine “whether or not the operative provision referred to in the history of this act needs interpretation in terms of the calculation of the interest rate of the monthly installments for the rescue of the main residence of the applicant and in the affirmative case,
a) if the interest rate, established in article 9 par. 2 of Law 3869/2010, must be calculated from the beginning of the regulation, on the total of the fixed debt capital of the borrower and the interest-based amortization installments of the total debt, by capital and interest, should be calculated,
or b) this interest rate will be calculated on each of the monthly installments during the month of its payment, and in the latter case, if this interest rate will be calculated for the whole year from the start of the arrangement until the payment of each installment or only from the month designated by the arrangement for the payment of each installment until its payment”.
Since no question of retroactivity was raised, sources of the Supreme Court state that with the decision of the Supreme Court, the way is opened for the borrowers to claim money through lawsuits for unjust enrichment against banks and funds.
