English
The initiators of the giving in payment law (lawyer Gheorghe Piperea and liberal deputy Cătălin Zamfir) consider the position of president Klaus Iohannis in his argumentation for sending the law back to the Parliament as being balanced.
The two emphasize the fact that the essence of the notice is that the law is good and welcome, in the context where three weeks ago, there were statements being made about how the initiative is unconstitutional and antinational, as it has the likelihood of causing systemic risk.
The only negative aspect is that the passing of the law would be delayed by a few more months, Gheorghe Piperea told us.
Deputy Zamfir expressed his satisfaction at the fact that president Iohannis has a positive stance on the principle of banks and their borrowers sharing the risk.
He told us: "The technical issues and the ones which concern making the distinction between those who would truly benefit from this law and the ones who have made real-estate speculations using the loans, can be discussed without any difficulty. It is worth noting that the president has not mentioned any systemic risk, he did not say that any bank would go into default and pull other banks down with it, he did not mention the apocalypse of the banking system, even though these things have been repeatedly mentioned so far".
Cătălin Zamfir said that amendments to the beneficiaries of the law will certainly be made, but without accepting the application of a cap on the amount of the loans or the revenues, which would take the law into an area of unconstitutionality, because implementing such restrictions would create discriminations.
On the other hand, a criterion can be accepted which would distinguish between individuals and those who have taken out the loans for speculative purposes.
The presidential argumentation states: "The principle of giving in payment (datio in solutum) is an economic and juridical principle which induces the sharing of risk, in an equitable manner, between the debtor and the creditor. We think that the application of this concept in relation to the institution of mortgage loans is welcome, but the adaptation of the institution of giving in payment to the specifics of this type of contract must be taken into consideration, as the former is a long term one, which would ensure the premises of lending relations based on sustainability in evaluating assets.
Therefore, the giving in payment must be legislated in such a way so as to prevent or reduce moral hazard in the relationship between creditors and debtors, in a contractual context in which their economic behaviors would be guided by the principle of responsibility where their legitimate rights and obligations are concerned".
The president feels that legislation on the matter needs to be clear and unambiguous, because that is the only way for the lawmakers to achieve their goals.
He says: "By instituting some procedures meant to derogate from the Civil Procedure Code, through the quasi-general derogation from the Civil Code, through the absence of express stipulations of correlation with other applicable regulatory acts, as well through the use of unclear terminology, the Law of giving in payment of some immovable assets in order to extinguish the liabilities taken on through loans, in the version that was sent in for promulgation can generate implementation difficulties and inconsistent judicial practices. Therefore, even though it institutes a simple and apparently tempting solution for extinguishing the debts taken on through loans, in reality such a regulation could cause problems for the beneficiaries of this law when it comes to the exercising of their legitimate rights, as well as in their legal relations with other people".
In response to these statements, Cătălin Zamfir emphasizes that on the contrary, the special laws include derogations from the Civil Code.
The Presidency thinks that "the lack of the express indication of the articles in the Civil Code which is being derogated from can generate difficulties when it comes to the applicability of these rules concerning the specifics of the right of ownership and of the extinguishment of debts".
The law on giving in payment of some immovable goods in order to extinguish the obligations taken on through loans does not correlate with the dispositions of the Government Emergency Ordinance 60/2009 concerning some measures in order to implement the "First Home" program, the statement posted on the website of the Presidential Administration further stresses.
The document further states that the law of giving in payment conflicts with the provisions of the Law of individual insolvency.
We remind that the draft ordinance concerning the postponement of the enactment of the Law of personal bankruptcy is currently on the Government's desks.
Alin Iacob, the president of the Association of Romanian Financial Services Users (AURSF), thinks that sending the Law of giving in payment back to the Parliament will cause some "troubles", as some people who would currently fall under its provisions, may no longer qualify for them three months from now.
Alin Iacob thinks that a moratorium should exist, in that regard, meaning that the people that would currently benefit from the law in question should not lose their position of beneficiaries thereof just because a few more months have passed.
Debtors have been awaiting for the law of giving in payment like a lifeline and have done everything in their power for it to be passed in the form that was voted in the Parliament and submitted to the President, Cristian Dan one of the few administrators of the Group of CHF borrowers told us. "Borrowers have filed countless petitions to the Presidential Administration, addressed to the institution, or have gone there individually or in groups to submit petitions and to be received by the President's advisors. CHF debtors are deeply disappointed and unhappy with the way they are treated by the institutions of the state, which seem to be standing side by side with the bankers - at least that was the perception of the borrowers who have been raising warnings since the beginning of the year".
The promulgation of the Law of giving in payment by president Iohannis was like an oxygen mask for these borrowers, like a lifeline, a breather given their current situation, said Cristian Dan, who is angry "at the banking lobby and the manipulation war carried out in the mass-media by the NBR and the representatives of the RBA" and feels that the intervention of representatives of foreign banks with the Presidential Administration is unacceptable, referring to the letter sent to Klaus Iohannis by the shareholders of four Romanian banks.
The intervention in question is viewed by the debtors "as a kind of attack on the country's sovereignty and independence, respectively against the Romanians who are in debt to banks operating in Romania".
The borrowers are asking the Parliament not to give in to the pressures of bankers, to investigate how the loans "which have caused the representatives of the NBR and the RBA to fight tooth and nail against the Law of giving in payment" have been granted, to depoliticize the ANPC and to place it under its control and to the extent where the legislative apparatus allows it, to fire the executives of the NBR and to verify the way the latter has overseen lending in Romania.
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
1. fără titlu
(message sent by Cristian BAN on 04.01.2016, 14:08)
Domnule MAKE, noi postacii bancari platiti prost va multumim pentru cenzura bunului plac cu care suntem tratati la grupul de presa Bursa.
La un moment dat, doamna, o sa fiti intrebata de ce ati cezurat niste mesaje care erau in limitele oricaror reguli pe care le-atui invoca. Poate motivul e o rugaciune a domnului DC...
In alta ordine de idei
Stolul clientilor cu credite in franci elvetieni (GCCParakletos) si fostul purtator de cuvant al Bancii Romane de Scont, Alin Iacob, solicita presdintelui Klaus I., DNA si DICOT sa verifice contractele oneroase si abuzive incheiate de bancile camatare si clientii de buna credinta.
In fapt, solicitam sa nu mai fim identificati de postacii bancilor ca sectanti sau grupul pocaitului Dan si nici ca datornici CHF intrucat stie toata lumea ca:
- nimeni din tara asta nu a mers la banca sa ia credit in CHF. Ne-am trezit fortat cu asemenea credite insa nimeni nu a ridicat de la banca CHF ci doar lei sau euro.
- consideram de asemenea un abuz al bancilor camatare faptul ca la leii si euro pe care i-am ridicat ca sa ne platim imobilele ne-a fost aplicata o dobanda mai mica decat cea la lei, mai precis ni s-a calculat dobanda de Libor CHF si marja. Asa ceva este inacceptabil.
-intrucat nu mai facem fata ratelor foarte mari si dobanda la lei a scazut pana la nivelul celei la CHF solicitam conversia ceeditului in lei.
-conversia creditului trebuie facta la cursul in lei al CHF de la data acordarii creditului pentru ca noi asa ne-am facut calculele si nimeni nu ne-a explicat ca poate fi altfel.
- nu suntem de acord cu plata retroactiva a dobanzilor la lei in cazul conversiei CHF la cursul de la data acordarii pentru ca atunci dobanzile la lei erau mari.
-solicitam ca dupa conversie bancile sa fie obligate la o dobanda fixa pe perioada rambursarii creditului. Nu putem sa ne asumam riscul variatiei Robir acesta fiind exclusiv in sarcina partii mai informate in contractul de creditare, in speta banca camatara.