Three credible sources claim that the ANPC has won the first "class action lawsuit" brought against a bank

The first hearing in a class action lawsuit in which the court has ruled in favor of borrowers apparently was apparently held yesterday, according to three credible sources: lawyer Gheorghe Piperea, ANPC president Marius Dunca and lawyer Adrian Cuculiş.

We have to mention that by the time the newspaper had gone to print, our editorial office had not come into possession of the ruling nor had any of our editors seen it.

Following the ruling of the Court of Bucharest, OTP Bank will be forced to eliminate from its loan contracts the terms which are considered abusive by the National Consumer Protection Authority (ANPC), according to the quoted sources.

Jurists claim that this case is a "milestone" for the similar ongoing lawsuits, and yesterday's ruling has created a precedent.

Lawyer Gheorghe Piperea told us: "OTP Bank lost to the ANPC, and it will be required to remove from its loan agreements all the abusive terms that this lawsuit is referring to, including those pertaining to the interest. The only request that was denied was the one which requires the bank to refund the extraneous amounts requested by the debtors, but that it is of lesser importance. Since these clauses are similar to the ones used by the rest of the banks, there is a high chance of the other class action lawsuits of the ANPC against the bank being allowed. The next step is for those who have been affected by these clauses to ask for their money back, amicably or in court".

The lawyer also said that the court accepted the request of the Parakletos association, which he leads, to join the lawsuit as joint plaintiff.

Marius Dunca, the president of the ANPC, told us: "The ruling has not been officially announced. According to our sources we've won, but we do await the official notification to see exactly what the decision actually states. This ruling is subject to appeal, which we hope to finish with quickly, to be able to apply the ruling to all the ongoing contracts. This is an important first step, which gives us confidence that justice will be done, that things will return to a state of normalcy and that citizens will have clean contracts, without abusive terms that seriously affect their economic interests. We have won a battle, but not the war".

After the ANPC vs. OTP Bank case was on trial for two years, in the latest hearing, the court accepted on principle, the first three counts of the complaint, which concerned the interest rate of the loan agreements in question, according to information obtained from sources close to the situation.

OTP Bank officials issued no comment on this information.

Two weeks ago, lawyer Gheorghe Piperea, who leads the Parakletos Association, stressed, on his Facebook page, the importance of the fact that the lawsuit has been filed by an authority of the Romanian state.

He said: "Since «class action» lawsuits filed on the grounds of art. 12-13 of the Law no. 193/2000 concern every standard contract of bank, that means that the reports of the abusive clauses found concern all the of the bank's contracts that include those clauses. More specifically, if the ANPC files several lawsuits alleging one or more clauses are abusive, that means that it already considers them officially abusive, and the contracts that include those clauses have to be «cleaned up». Precisely because they are abusive, are bound to «ejected» from the contract, which will eliminate the abuse of economic power of the bank, and, implicitly, but more importantly, with the consequence of warning off any bank that may be tempted with illegitimate profits obtained using abusive practices".

Lawyer Piperea says that currently, the courts have several ongoing "class action" lawsuits concerning the allegedly abusive nature of the risk/administration fee; of the variable interest rate; of the interest rate that may be revised at the bank's discretion and policy; of the currency conversion clause, which shifts the entire risk of the depreciation of the leu against the dollar, Euro, or the CHF etc. to the consumer.

The National Consumer Protection Authority (ANPC) has recently announced the beginning of a thematic audit in the banking sector, following the notifications received by the Authority from bank customers. As part of the themed audit, ANPC inspectors are checking whether lenders have remedied the issues found.

Since the beginning of the year, the ANPC has received 2,296 complaints from consumers, of which only 389 have seen an amicable resolution, according to Marius Dunca, its president.

He also mentioned that the ANPC still has about 33 ongoing lawsuits against banks and four that are in the process of being filed. All of these lawsuits concern clauses pertaining to interest and commissions, and have the same effects as in the case in which the court issued a ruling yesterday, namely the extension of the ruling to cover all the loan agreements concluded by the banks in question, should the ANPC win those lawsuits.

As at the present time due to some clauses in the loan agreements which are considered abusive and/or due to the hike of the exchange rate, many debtors are being foreclosed upon by lenders, since they are unable to make their monthly payments, lawyer Gheorghe Piperea advises people to take the following steps: ask the courts, either individually or through a class action lawsuit, to suspend the effects of the clauses that the ANPC has challenged in court, and to ask the ANPC to rule the temporary suspension of the sale of loans affected by abusive terms, including the collection of loan repayments on the grounds of the clauses found to be abusive.

In support of what he said above, Gheorghe Piperea mentions art. 55 of Government Ordinance no. 21/1992 concerning consumer protection, which states: "In order to limit the losses incurred by consumers, the inspector may decide the following: the temporary halting of the delivery of the service, import, manufacturing, sale, of the products or of their use in providing the service, until the flaws are remedied, if services are being provided which can threaten [...] the consumers' economic interests".