English
After voting in favor of the introduction, in the Law of Giving in payment, of a cap of 150,000 Euros for the amount of the loan at the time of its granting, social-democrats seem to be having second thoughts on that aspect.
The Social Democrat Party (PSD) is carefully analyzing a potential risk of the law being unconstitutional, PSD leader Liviu Dragnea said yesterday, referring to the cap introduced on Monday in the plenum of the Senate.
Liviu Dragnea mentioned: "After the vote in the Senate, I have talked to my colleagues in the Chamber of Deputies, in the group, in order to carefully analyze a potential unconstitutionality risk for the ceiling introduced in the Senate. We stand by our objective to have as its main target the Romanians who have taken out loans to have a home, just one, not those who have made a business out of it - that doesn't mean it's illegal - but we don't want this kind of law to help them. Those are commercial relations and that cannot be the goal of this law. Therefore, we are reviewing this law and depending on that, we will also decide and cast our vote".
The head of the PSD announced that he does not rule out the text of the law undergoing changes in the Chamber of Deputies: "We do not rule out, because natural questions have arisen, natural reactions, with people saying: «Well, maybe someone had a loan of less than 150,000 Euros, but when you add to that the interest rate the amount owed goes above that cap». What does one do with people who had a loan of 160,000 Euros? These questions have arisen and I think that we need to look carefully, and on top of that the risk of unconstitutionality exists, it is real. And before we give our vote, we need to have this serious analysis. Sure, we will also talk to the NBR again, and to the initiators, and to other institutions that are concerned".
The law of giving in payment was voted unanimously on Monday, in the senate, but with two amendments - the introduction of the 150,000 Euros cap and the mention that the mortgage must have been granted on the home that was acquired through the loan.
Monday night, liberal deputy Daniel Cătălin Zamfir posted on his Facebook page: "Normally, this day (ed. note: Monday) should have brought us closer to the happy end of this road of the Law of giving in payment. I am saying this because at lunch, I have participated in a very constructive talk with the PSD senators, who, even though they had their former finance minister in front of them, first deputy governor of the NBR Florin Georgescu, did not accept even one of the proposals of the NBR, as they understood that they were not being made in good faith and for the benefit of people. At the end of the meeting, the leader of the PSD senators came out together with me and told the press that the PSD supports the Law of giving in payment, including for the First Home program. He said nothing about any cap or criteria, especially since these amendments of the banks, endorsed by PSD senator Belacurencu (ed. note: Trifon Belacurencu), had been crushingly rejected in all of the four specialized commissions of the Senate.
Not even half an hour later, the law was passed in the plenum, with the amendment which had been proposed by Belacurencu and voted by his colleagues in the PSD. The amendment stipulates that the law would only apply to loans of up to 150,000 Euros and also includes a catch, that the mortgage be applied to the home that was acquired. Both elements are harmful to this law. Why?
1. I wouldn't have anything against a limit like that, especially since it could cover most of the distressed people, if it weren't a poisoned apple, which makes the law extremely vulnerable from a discrimination angle. This is not a law intended to create breaks for a specific category, instead it is a law to protect consumers. I think that a desire to introduce a vulnerability has been introduced into the law (...).
2. What happens with people who have borrowed 152,000 Euros? If they cannot pay, do they just hang themselves?
3. What appears extremely crooked to me is the exclusion of parents who have secured their children's homes with their own from the application of the law. Furthermore, personal consumer loans with mortgage account for about half of those who are currently having trouble making their payments. This completely kills the intention of the PSD to target social cases.
In conclusion, I do not know if the PSD senators have not paid attention today (ed. note: Monday) or whether they fell prey to the lobbying of the NBR. We are going to find out when the vote in the Chamber of Deputies is held. What I do know however is that the PSD has been fair so far in supporting the law and I hope that goes back on this amendment. And I also know another extremely important thing: that the overwhelming majority of the PNL senators have been paying attention, and they have not fallen into the banks' trap".
Daniel Zamfir yesterday told us that he understands the penchant of the PSD when it comes to the social side and he is convinced that the social-democrats want to help the social cases first of all, and he said: "I think that the amendments included in the law have misled them. I do not think that the PSD has realized that, as an example, the version of the law that was voted in the plenum would prevent the parents who guaranteed their children's homes with their own from benefiting from its provisions".
Lawyer Gheorghe Piperea, who is the author of the law, also mentioned the 150,000 Euros cap: "The cap (...) will possibly have at least two adverse (even perverse) effects:
- loans will be capped at 150,000 Euros, because no one will take out loans that don't qualify for the giving in payment; properties will also be stuck with prices of at most 150,000 Euros plus a percentage of 5-40%, in other words the downpayment that banks are asking for;
- truly rich individuals, who don't want to borrow more than 150,000 Euros will qualify for the law of giving in payment, even though they are rich, while people who aren't rich could be forced to borrow 151,000 Euros, due to the market conditions of Bucharest or Cluj, and they wouldn't qualify for giving in payment. (...) The cap is unconstitutional, no matter how you look at it. The Chamber of Deputies won't be able to keep it. Thus, we have to carry this rock all the way through, to the top of the mountain".
Consumers, who are also displeased with the amendments made to the law of giving in payment, are continuing with their actions of contacting MPs, and asking them not to approve the amendments in the Chamber of Deputies, which is the decision maker in the Parliament.
In the letters addressed to the MPs, borrowers write: "The PSD has slapped us in the face. We thought that this party is for the people, but it has proven that it isn't. (...) I do not understand why the PSD, a party voted by so many people, this amendment proposed by the NBR. I only understand that we have been betrayed once again. I only understand that our torment will be further extended, and that once again people don't matter when it comes to money and the banks' profits.
We have children and we are terrified when we think about their future, as long as Romanian lawmakers can make a fair law into an inequitable one. We have children and we are deeply saddened when we think about the fact that they will inherit our debts, because we are going to be discriminated and we will be watching from the sidelines how some will have the ability to save themselves while others won't. Some will spend years in court to earn their justice and they won't give up. Others will kill themselves, because the burden is already too heavy for most of them. (...) In closing, I want to remind you Solomon's words about justice: «Treasures amassed through lawlessness are of no use; only justice escapes death»".
By the time the newspaper had gone to the printers', the representatives of the Romanian Banking Association (ARB) had not yet sent us their opinion on the new version of the law of giving in payment.
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
