She Won €8,090 in CHF Loan Case, but Court Overturns Everything
The County Court in Šibenik reversed the first-instance ruling and rejected the CHF loan borrower's claim, stating that the 2015 conversion had already covered the overpayment.
The County Court in Šibenik reversed the first-instance ruling and rejected the CHF loan borrower's claim, stating that the 2015 conversion had already covered the overpayment.
A new court chapter has closed in the struggle of Swiss franc loan borrowers seeking refunds for overpaid amounts. In a dispute against Privredna banka Zagreb, the first-instance court awarded the borrower €8,090.42, but the County Court in Šibenik overturned that decision and fully rejected her claim.
The key element that turned the case around was the 2015 contract annex, which converted the disputed loan from Swiss francs to euros.
In 2005, the borrower took out a housing loan of 83,000 CHF in kuna equivalent with a 20-year repayment period. The contract included a variable interest rate and a currency clause tied to the Swiss franc, causing her installments to rise over time.
After a collective lawsuit established that such contractual terms were unfair and void, the borrower sought a refund of the overpaid amounts. According to financial expert analysis, the difference due to interest rate changes was €1,071, while the difference from exchange rate fluctuations reached €6,945. The total overpaid installments amounted to €8,015.50.
The first-instance court accepted nearly the entire claim and ordered the bank to pay €8,090.42, including accrued interest.
Privredna banka Zagreb filed an appeal, arguing that payment would constitute double compensation. Specifically, during the 2015 conversion of the loan to euros, the established overpayment had already been accounted for. According to the contract annex, the remaining principal after conversion was €33,660.
The appellate court accepted this argument. The decision highlights that during the conversion, conducted under a special law from 2015, the borrower and the bank renegotiated their relationship-the loan currency, interest rate, and remaining principal were all reset. The court determined that after signing such an annex, the borrower no longer has the right to claim a refund of the principal that was already included in the conversion calculation.
The court did note an interesting legal nuance: even after conversion, a consumer may still be entitled to default interest on individual overpaid amounts that were factored into the conversion. However, in this case, such interest was not part of the claim, so the final outcome was unfavorable for the borrower.
At the same time, her appeal seeking an additional €2,371.25 for the principal difference arising from the conversion was also rejected. Despite the bank winning the case, the court did not order the borrower to pay procedural costs. The reasoning was that she acted as a consumer and the weaker contractual party, and at the time the lawsuit was filed, case law on this issue was not yet settled.
The ruling has closed this specific dispute, but its reasoning once again demonstrates the complexity of judicial calculations regarding the consequences of old CHF loans, especially when the loan has undergone statutory conversion.
