Early repayment of the loan: Borrower's right to reduction in the total cost of the credit and bank's compensation right

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M.
The right of early repayment of the loan by the borrower is enshrined in both European law and national legal systems. There are essentially two main effects of this right’s exercise: On the one hand, the consumer/ borrower is entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the credit consisting of interest and charges for the remaining period of the contract. On the other hand, the bank shall be entitled to reasonable and objectively justified compensation for any costs directly linked to early repayment of the credit, provided that the early repayment is made within the period for which the borrowing rate is fixed. (Article 16 (1) of Directive 2008/48).
Bank’s compensation
The relative clauses used by most banks regarding the issue of early repayment of the loan are vaguely worded and non-transparent and have therefore been repeatedly declared illegal, unfair and abusive. It is commonly stated that compensation includes any costs, expenses, losses, or liabilities that the bank may incur as a result of early repayment. It does not specify, however, what the costs, expenses, etc. are, but it is left to the credit institution's absolute discretion to determine the amount of compensation unilaterally and without actual control by the consumer. Such a clause which, put in place by the strong party and despite the requirement of good faith, creates a significant disproportionate burden on the consumer between the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract is found to be abusive and unfair.
According to Article 16 of Directive 2008/48, compensation for early repayment shall not be claimed: (a) if the repayment has been made under an insurance contract intended to provide a credit repayment guarantee;
(b) in the case of overdraft facilities; or
(c) if the repayment falls within a period for which the borrowing rate is not fixed.
In conclusion, the compensation claimed by the bank in case of early repayment of the loan must be definite and limited and its calculation must be understandable and transparent for the consumer. It should relate to any costs that are directly linked to early repayment, also taking into account the amounts which the bank may have saved from inflating the repayable amount. The calculation of the creditor's compensation should be transparent and comprehensible to the consumer from the pre-conclusion stage, in any case during the execution of the credit agreement. In addition, the method of calculation should be easy to apply by creditors and promote supervisory control of compensation by responsible authorities.
The right of the borrower to reduce the total cost of the credit
The exercise of the right of early repayment of the loan by the borrower implies its right to reduce the total cost of the credit. What does this cost include, Directive 2008/48 specifies:
“The total cost of the credit to the consumer should comprise all the costs, including interest, commissions, taxes, fees for credit intermediaries and any other fees which the consumer has to pay in connection with the credit agreement, except for notarial costs. Creditors’ actual knowledge of the costs should be assessed objectively, taking into account the requirements of professional diligence”.
In determining the total cost of the loan, charges and expenses that depend on the duration of the loan agreement and those that are not dependent should be distinguished. If the latter are not included in the total cost of the loan, the consumer / borrower's right in this regard is limited and weakened. Banks will only provide for costs and charges that are not subject to the term of the loan agreement, in order to prevent such costs from being included in those related to the reduction of the total cost of the credit, which the borrower will be entitled to when prematurely repays its obligations.
The recent decision of the ECJ of 11 September 2019 in Case C ‑ 383/18 provides that the right of the consumer to reduce the total cost of credit in the event of early repayment shall include all costs incurred,  the payment of which was charged to the consumer and therefore costs and charges that are independent of the duration of the loan agreement.
The Court bases its judgment in stating that “the effectiveness of the right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit would be reduced if the reduction of the credit could be limited to the taking into account of only those costs presented by the creditor as dependent on the duration of the contract, given that …the costs and the breakdown thereof are determined unilaterally by the bank and the charging of fees may include a certain profit margin…
In addition… limiting the possibility of reducing the total cost of the credit solely to costs expressly connected with the duration of the contract would entail the risk that the consumer would be required to make a higher one-off payment when concluding the credit agreement since the creditor could be tempted to reduce the costs depending on the duration of the contract to a minimum…
Furthermore… the degree of flexibility available to credit institutions in terms of invoicing and internal organisation makes it very difficult in practice for a consumer or a court to determine which costs are objectively linked to the duration of the contract”.
In view of the above we can come to some conclusions:
1. The borrower's early repayment right implies his right to reduce the total cost of the credit, which includes all costs incurred by the bank.
2. The compensation which the bank is entitled to exercise of the above right shall be definite and limited and the calculation of it must be understandable and transparent for the consumer. It should only concern any costs that are directly related to early repayment. Clauses referring to compensation that generally and indefinitely include any costs, expenses, damages, losses or liabilities that the bank may incur as a result of early repayment are unlawful, abusive and have no legal effect.
3. It must not be forgotten that the bank, through early repayment, recovers the loan amount early, which apparently uses when concludes a new credit agreement and thus imposes new charges and commissions. In addition, early repayment of a loan ensures that it will never become unsecured. It is therefore not particularly critical to argue that the bank is suffering significant damage from early repayment, even to the extent that it entitles it to claim unfair compensation.
*George Kazoleas is Lawyer in Greece & Cyprus

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more