The Paris Court of Appeal has aligned itself with a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union recognizing the abusive nature of these loans
New crucial legal steps were taken on Wednesday in the case of loans in Swiss francs repayable in euros. These mortgages were offered by certain banks to borrowers in the 2000s. The most emblematic case concerns BNP Paribas Personal Finance. Known under the Cetelem brand, this subsidiary of BNP Paribas is accused of having concealed from 4,600 borrowers (having taken out the loan called Helvet Immo) the risks of these variable-rate loans, risks which materialized: after the 2010 crisis, the Swiss franc soared, resulting in a sharp increase in capital still to be repaid. Almost all borrowers still owe more capital than the amount borrowed.
“The Court of Cassation decided on Wednesday to oblige banks to concretely inform borrowers about the financial risks involved in loans in Swiss francs repayable in eurosexplains lawyer Charles Constantin-Vallet, representing more than 1,150 borrowers from Helvet Immo. It also decided that there is no prescription in terms of unfair terms. All aggrieved consumers can take legal action.
Read alsoSwiss National Bank profit arouses envy
On Wednesday afternoon, the Paris Court of Appeal also aligned itself with a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union recognizing the abusive nature of these loans. “These decisions are decisiveargues Charles Constantin-Vallet. From now on, all consumers concerned by loans in Swiss francs, and not only those who have subscribed to Helvet Immo, can take legal action to cancel their loan.
Justice provides that they will have to repay the bank only the capital borrowed, without interest rate and without costs. This could be costly for institutions. BNP Paribas Personal Finance, for example, lent 800 million euros under the Helvet Immo loans. “The Court of Justice of the European Union has explained that the cost for the banks is not significant. The main thing is the deterrent effect of the rule which should lead them to no longer stipulate abusive clauses in the contracts marketed”, emphasizes Charles Constantin-Vallet.