A credit strike - an unusual decision of one customer of BCR

One customer of the Romanian Commercial Bank (BCR) yesterday sent the members of the Romanian Parliament a letter requesting the investigation of the activities conducted by the Romanian Banking Association (ARB), the Government, the International Monetary Fund, (IMF) and BCR concerning the loan agreements concluded between the bank and its customers. Unhappy with the current situation of his loan contract, the author of the letter announces that he will go on "banking strike", by paying his installments with a delay of 29 days, and is asking for the creation of a parliamentary commission to protect citizens against the abuse of banks.

In the letter addresses to the Parliament, the customer of BCR writes: "I think that it is unacceptable that a lawful country, member of the EU, would delay the enactment of the amendments to the Law no. 193/2000, namely, the desire to change these regulations in order to eliminate the possibility for consumer protection associations to file lawsuits with the court which could lead to a banking institution being forced to amend all the contracts which include that clause. (...) I am supported by other 326 Romanian citizens who took out loans between 2006 and 2009 from the most important bank in the system, BCR. All of these people, myself included, took out loans to build a better future for their families. Most of the loans are real estate loans, guaranteed with a property. The value of these loans is 20 million Euros, money which went back into the economy in various forms: purchases of construction materials, apartments, notary fees, taxes paid to the state for those buildings".

The author of the letter considers himself as an AAA rating customer - in other words, one who pays on time, and he chose to conclude a loan agreement with BCR. In the letter, the customer states: "Due to the fact that, in 2010, following the appearance of the Government Emergency Ordinance 50/2010, to make loan agreements more transparent, I was unable to have a fair negotiation with the bank, I chose to file a lawsuit against BCR to eliminate the abusive clauses from the contract/contracts signed and to pay the fair contract, not an abusive price that is set one-sidedly by the bank. For two years and a half I chose to let the court do its job, without being influenced by articles in the press. This is no longer the case and will stop now, following the ruling of the Court of Appeal in my case and in those of other consumers who belong to two groups, which denied the appeal filed by us, as well as the appeal filed by BCR, which led to the lawsuit being thrown out of court on claims of being groundless. This decision of the Court of Appeal was rendered on February 2013. But, in November 2012, one plaintiff, represented by the same law firm as us, who had a similar complaint, with the same argumentation and the same type of contract, won all the counts of the lawsuit, at the same Court of Appeal, and on the same department. It is unacceptable for the government to exercise such pressure against the legal system to determine the rendering of opposite rulings (completely different) by the same court, even more, by the same section of that court".

In closing, the author of the letter requests the following: "I want the courts to try cases in a fair manner, without any influence from politics or economics. I want the government to stop yielding to the pressures made by the Romanian Banking Association and the IMF for the unjustified protection of banks, to the detriment of their customers, who are citizens of this country".

Even though the office of "BURSA" has asked BCR for a point of view on the case, the representatives of the bank did not provide it by the time the paper went to print.

The Romanian Consumer Protection Association (APC) recently filed a complaint about the fact that at the recent seminar which was held on Tuesday at the National Bank of Romania (BNR), which had the topic "The legal consequences generated by the coming into effect of the Law 193/2000 concerning the abusive terms of the contracts concluded between professionals and consumers", no representatives of the consumer protection organizations were invited. "Why should they have been invited indeed, since all the distinguished guests who attended the discussion did was look for solutions to avoid the dispositions of articles 12 and 13 of the Law 193/2000 and not to apply the disposition by which the consumer protection associations would have the ability to bring class action lawsuits against banks?", says lawyer Mihaela Cocan, of APC Romania.

She also expressed her discontent that the discussions of the seminar were designed to favor banks exclussively.

The lawyer also accused the fact that the people who attended the room could not ask any questions to the speakers, thus avoiding any controversies over their statements.

In January, the Government decided to postpone until mid-year the introduction in the legislation of a provision of the new Code of Civil Procedure which would have allowed the consumer associations and the National Authority for Consumer Protection to file lawsuits demanding the annulment of abusive terms from the contracts concluded with banks.

The postponement came at the request of the mission of the International Monetary Fund (FMI), which said that there is no study on the impact the measure would have on the banking system. Such a requirement has also been introduced in the letters of intent of 2010, when the international experts asked for the amendment of the Emergency Government Ordinance 50/2010, which requires banks to present the costs of the loan agreements in a more transparent manner.