Recently, a law firm working for banks has commissioned the Columbine Academy. I was in a difficult position to tell what’s new to those who are “just” lawyers but deal with securities and other banking products every day. They had no big news about the risk of a bond or why to look for the lower case.
Here we have a good relationship with the head of the office
head of the office” />
Who I asked about exactly what is at stake in the expected decision of the European Court of Justice on foreign currency loans and why everyone is waiting for their breath to stifle the outcome.
As I understand it, the point is that the debtor in question wants to get the whole contract null and void by adhering to what he claims to be a formal error (not specifically mentioned as a margin). In contrast, the Hungarian position was to maintain the validity of the contract, only to correct the point at issue. It was the European Court of Justice that had to decide.
It is quite pleasing to me when someone enjoys an opportunity
As long as it is favorable for them, and when the wind turns so good (lower interest rates, decreasing details) to work against it now, for formal reasons, wants to get out.
You may or may even have to sue to see if the costs charged are correct, there was no abuse in pricing the loans, and so on. But finding loopholes to see if I can get away with it and spoil my own damage…. Well, not very vertebrate.)
Now that the advisory board’s decision has come out (it’s not the Court’s decision yet!), I asked again how to interpret it now. He wrote down his opinion in a letter. I asked if I could publish what you agreed to.
Note that this is an unedited private letter, but I think it will be good for a thought-provoking one.
“With so much idiocy in the Internet press, so let me summarize what I think the Opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice is about. As a lawyer, I bring forward a number of foreign currency-denominated lawsuits from a banking firm, but I do not think that I would be able to judge the issue accordingly.
It took the view that the rule for determining the exchange rate
To be applied was the so-called contract term. is of primary interest, the unfairness of which may be examined by the court seised of the case only if the wording is unclear and unintelligible.
However, the Advocate General does not rule on the latter condition, merely stating that it is not enough that the wording is grammatically intelligible and clear, as is clearly the case here, but that the wording must have consequences for the consumer and their risks as well.
The problem with the Advocate General is that it was not clear to the Castles why the bank used a foreign exchange rate when paying out the loan and why it used a foreign exchange rate when paying the forint repayment. Nor does it consider it likely that consumers will be able to appreciate the magnitude of the difference between the two rates. Although he does not use this concept, this is the difference that the Mansion calls the exchange rate gap.
It should be noted that in many places the Advocate General’s argument is theoretical and speculative. The reason for this is that you have to take a stand on an abstract legal issue and not on a specific case. With this in mind, he does not even know the details of the case and the outcome of the trial. Of course, I do not know this either, but the domestic practice and the legal environment do. At our currency exchange institutions, we must visibly suspend the buying and selling rates.