A revolution in franc processes? The expert cools down her emotions

The draft law prepared by the Ministry of Justice, intended to speed up proceedings regarding loans indexed and denominated in Swiss francs, caused a wave of emotions among Swiss franc holders and their representatives. Some of them demand the complete rejection of the project, considering it harmful to consumers.

– The most controversial issue is the right to set off receivables until the end of the second instance. This is a concern about the possibility of deleting interest or taking into account the deduction of a time-barred receivable and a violation of the two-instance system. The Act itself does not modify any of these institutions of substantive law, but extends the right to raise such an objection in court proceedings – says in an interview with “Wprost” legal advisor Agnieszka Sobczyk from the K & L Legal Granat i Wspólnicy Law Firm, which in 2024 obtained the first judgment determining the amount of installment in a loan with the sanction of a free loan and the first group judgment declaring the invalidity of Swiss franc loans.

The expert points to the ministerial assurances that neither the consumer’s right to interest on the demand nor the issue of limitation in the amendment is in any way raised or threatened.

Explanations from the Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice issued a statement on this matter a few days ago. “However, numerous misleading statements have appeared in the public space regarding the purpose of the act and the effects of its introduction on consumers,” says the ministry, which decided to point out the most important issues of the amendment.

“The introduction of the project will improve Swiss franc proceedings,” says the ministry, arguing that the changes will shorten the waiting time for resolution of all types of civil cases, for example divorce, compensation or compensation cases.

“The introduction of the act is therefore beneficial to all citizens,” the ministry emphasizes, and assures that the project provides “only procedural provisions and does not in any way affect the standards developed by the CJEU regarding the limitation period for a bank’s claim or the consumer’s entitlement to interest for delay on the entire amount to be refunded when the bank was called for payment in the event of mutual compensation.”

The matter of interest

Meanwhile, as the lawyer explains, in accordance with the regulations, each party, in particular the consumer, has the right to demand interest for delay in calling for a payment that is not due due to the presence of prohibited provisions in the contract.

– Today it is a lot of money, because the interest for delay is 10.25%. per year – says attorney Sobczyk and points out that in accordance with the Civil Code, the person who submits the declaration of deduction determines what is deducted from what, i.e. which debt is satisfied and in what amount.

– The declaration of deduction itself will therefore determine whether the bank, while paying for the consumer’s request – because deduction is a substitute for payment – will also satisfy the interest. If the bank does not indicate in the declaration of deduction that it settles its capital with interest, then, as in the judgment of the Supreme Court of August 8, 2025, the award will concern statutory interest for delay from the deadline specified in the request for payment to the declaration of deduction – notes attorney Sobczyk.

It indicates that the Supreme Court has repeatedly commented on the right to charge interest for delay from the due date of the request for payment of an earlier receivable until the due date of a later receivable.

– It should also be remembered that a declaration of deduction will not result in a “payment” to the consumer if the bank, as the deductor, submits its time-barred receivable for deduction. Such exclusion results directly from Art. 502 CC. This is also justified in doctrine and case law. However, errors in judgments may occur, explains the lawyer.

Frankowicze concerned about the act

As the lawyer notes, consumers are afraid that the court of second instance may take into account such a deduction and deprive them of interest, without taking into account the claim of limitation, even though we are dealing with a final judgment.

– It must be remembered that a cassation appeal is an extraordinary means of appeal, not a third instance. However, my experience shows that banks are not very interested in such a solution, because not only do they sue my clients who have already offset claims, but they even do it in several parallel processes – says attorney Sobczyk.

According to the expert, the amendment in its current form may introduce interpretative chaos and prolong disputes instead of shortening them. Much depends on how the regulations will be applied in practice and whether the courts will treat the new regulations in a uniform manner.

– However, the resolution of these concerns is a political decision whether, despite the existence of risk in relation to ongoing court proceedings, to allow the charge of set-off to be filed only until the end of the first or second instance – concludes the lawyer.