The basic court calculated the costs of the proceedings for 267 users of loans in Swiss francs (CHF) to the wrong party, which caused the plaintiffs to lose over one million euros, said the lawyer of the Center for the Protection of Consumer Rights (CEZAP), Dragomir Ćalasan.
He said that the Court made a decision that the plaintiffs should pay 3,75 thousand euros to Hypo Alpe Adria Bank, now Addiko Bank, and 3,08 thousand euros to the intervener, Heta, for the costs of the proceedings.
"At the same time, the court forgets the fact that for about 120 plaintiffs, until the middle of last year, the lawsuit was withdrawn, to whose withdrawal, the defendant did not agree. Because of this, the claim was withdrawn for those persons, since they are not obliged to bear the costs of the proceedings. Since at least three hearings were held from the middle of last year until the verdict was passed, as many of them were postponed, the defendant submitted one submission during that period, which the court recognized as justified, which reduces the amount by at least one third of the established amount of one million euros. stated Ćalasan in the announcement.
According to him, it is scandalous that in both cases the court determines the costs of the proceedings for 267 plaintiffs, especially with the fact that the intervener reported 48 plaintiffs, whose claims were assigned to him.
"How can the prosecutor obligate himself to pay the costs of the procedure to the intervener when he had no legal relationship with him? Should legal interest be proved in this case as well? In the explanation, the court mentioned contracts on assignment of claims with compensation for 48 persons. Only for those persons, the intervener could request the costs of the procedure, but not for the other plaintiffs. As a result, the prosecutor's side was damaged by 670 euros," Ćalasan specified.
He believes that with a rough calculation, based on the application of the attorney's fee, it is obvious that the court in its calculation damaged the plaintiffs in the amount of around one million euros.
"Isn't that a sufficient reason to cancel the decision on the costs of the procedure", asked Ćalasan.
In fact, as he stated, the costs of the proceedings were, in principle, awarded to the wrong party.
"Shouldn't those who succeeded in the dispute, namely the plaintiffs, with the "distorted" interpretation of the court in every respect, receive the costs of the proceedings? Their primary request was adopted by the adoption of a law that declared the disputed decrees void ex lege," Ćalasan said.
He added that it was up to the court to continue the proceedings with expert testimony and determine the plaintiffs who did not conclude annexes, i.e. agreements on debt settlement with the defendant, to determine the actual amount of the debt, reduce their annuities or return part of the funds, if they subscribed to the debt.
Bonus video:
