At the beginning of this month, the lawyers of 113 clients of Adiko Bank who had loans in Swiss francs filed a constitutional appeal, asking the Constitutional Court to annul the judgment according to which they must pay court costs in the dispute they had with the bank.
According to the verdict of the Basic Court in Podgorica, which was confirmed by the Higher Court, each of the clients must individually pay 4.032 euros for court costs in the proceedings with the bank and another 3.600 euros each to the factoring company Heta, to which the bank transferred loans that it could not collect.
These costs are further increased due to interest.
A few days ago, public bailiffs started blocking citizens' accounts in order to collect court costs.
In 2016, the state enabled citizens who took out loans in Swiss francs from Adiko Bank (formerly Hipo Aple Adria Bank) to convert those loans into euros under the conditions that were valid on the day they were taken out, i.e. with a fixed interest rate of 8,2 percent on an annual basis and without default interest.
This was done through a law adopted by the Parliament, which was preceded by a lawsuit filed by the clients.
Waiver of the lawsuit does not mean that the clients have not succeeded in the dispute, but rather that the legal interest in continuing the dispute has been lost.
Since the law fulfilled what the citizens demanded by the lawsuit, 113 of them gave up the lawsuit due to the economy of the procedure, while 154 clients did not give up the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in May 2013. The bank approved loans in Swiss francs in 2007 and 2008, and later, due to the change in the exchange rate, installments were drastically increased.
Absurd decision of the High Court
Lawyers Dragomir Ćalasan, Vladan Đuranović and Biljana Vuksanović stated in their constitutional complaint that the High Court's verdict should be annulled, that the clients' right to a fair trial and peaceful enjoyment of their property was violated, and they recalled the earlier verdict of the Constitutional Court.
They state that it established that "it is indisputable that the contested housing loan contracts are considered absolutely null and void, which is why the legislator invalidated them and obliged the bank to perform their conversion, that the absolute nullity of the main contract and its invalidation results in such a contract does not produce legal effect".
"This fulfills the first part of the claim. By applying the provisions of the Law on the conversion of loans in Swiss francs, by eliminating the foreign exchange clause and the variable interest rate, and the absence of the calculation of default interest, most of the plaintiffs have reduced the amount of their debt. The second, active part of the claim for 113 clients was fulfilled, which is why they concluded new agreements on debt settlement. After their claim was fulfilled, both establishing and substantive, they withdrew the claim and asked for the costs of the procedure, which the defendant (bank) and the intervener (Heta) did not agree to, so the plaintiffs withdrew the claim only for reasons of procedural economy.
Therefore, any further conduct of the proceedings would cause new costs, so in the end all further costs of the proceedings would fall to the burden of the prosecutors", the constitutional appeal states.
The lawyers explained that the High Court, in connection with the judgment for court costs, found that the plaintiffs (113 clients) had waived their claim, so the High Court ruled that the clients lost the case and that they are obliged to pay the costs.
"Such a decision of the court is absurd because by waiving the lawsuit it does not mean that the clients have failed in the dispute, but that the legal interest in continuing the dispute has been lost. During the conduct of the dispute, the plaintiffs achieved what they sought in the lawsuit, so their expenses from the moment of waiver - fulfillment of the bank's obligation, were necessary and justified. The bank gave cause for the lawsuit, and the fact that the lawsuit was founded was definitely confirmed by the adoption of the Law on the Conversion of Credit in Swiss Francs, which ordered the bank to act in the manner requested by the lawsuit," the constitutional complaint explained, among other things.
Bonus video:
