According to the press release, the case was submitted to the court based on the certified minutes which indicated the existence of possible abusive clauses in the contracts of personal loans, bank credit mortgage agreements, and mortgage loan agreements, respectively clauses regarding:

1.     Monitoring fee “Percentages calculated on the monthly balance of the loan is paid monthly along with the credit rate“. According to the press release, “this clause shows signs of unfairness because in the contracts there is no clear definition of this commission, the more these contracts have a management fee that was charged at the moment of granting the credit and in view of the bank this commission of monitoring is one and the same with the management fee. “

2.     Interest For the mortgage bank credit agreement was analyzed the clause stipulated in art. 6.1 “For the first year of lending there was an imposing fixed interest rate of …% and thereafter variable, consisting of reference index LIBOR / EURIBOR / BUBOR 3M plus margin .of ….%, revisable on 25 March, June 25, September 25 and December 25 depending on the reference index LIBOR / EURIBOR / BUBOR 3M determined on the base currency of the credit in accordance with the reference index value valid on March 15, June 15, September and December 15. If the bank decides to modify the interest rate it will inform the customer about the new value of the monthly payment and the new applicable interest rate. “

3.     In the case of bank loan credit agreement with mortgage “a fixed interest rate for the first year of crediting period which begins with the date of the first drawdown after which it will be paid a variable interest rate of the Bank which is reviewed in the light of the Bank’s interest policy after that date, composed by the reference index Bank’s reference index to which is added an interest rate plus margin ….% the interest being reviewed in the light of the evolution of the reference interest. “

Court decision in this case was:

“The Complaint is partially admitted. Holds partially the official report no. 0630802/1279 / 10.30.2013 done by the plaintiff and holds the unfairness of the clauses inserted in art. 5 letter d in credit agreements B0029570 / 07.10.2008 and B0026838 / 19.09.2008 and art. 6 paragraph 1 in credit contracts B0029570 / 07.10.2008 B0026838 / 16.09.2008 and of 10.10.2007 54,073,888, forcing the defendant to amend the clauses deemed unfair under Art. 13 paragraph 2 in connection with art. 2, in connection to art. 16 of Law 193/2000, applies to the defendant the contravention penalty fine of 400 lei. Dismisses the 4th chapter of the claim, noting the lack of active capacity. With appeal in 15 days from communication, the appeal being submitted to the Bucharest Tribunal. “