Final appeal of our client was upheld before the Supreme Court.
\nThe Supreme Court, through its no.368\/2019 judgement, upheld the final appeal brought by our law firm concerning a principal of ours recent case. The Court held in its judgement that the adversary\u2019s, namely the bank\u2019s, calculation of interest on the principal was illegal, because it was based on a year with a duration of 360 days instead of 365 days, as it should. This calculation is contrary to the provisions of article 2 par.6 of law no.2251\/1994, since the above general term of contract breaches the principle of transparency, because the consumer isn\u2019t informed of the real annual interest rate. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in the same judgement that the bank\u2019s charges which aren\u2019t related to remuneration for the special services provided by it, one-off costs and expenses in favor of third parties, constitute illegal supply, even if they are described by the bank as \u201cfile expenses\u201d.
\nThe above judgement is the first one to be expressly delivered by the Supreme Court of the country concerning these specific issues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Final appeal of our client was upheld before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, through its no.368\/2019 judgement, upheld the final appeal brought by our law firm concerning a principal of ours recent case. The Court held in its judgement that the adversary\u2019s, namely the bank\u2019s, calculation of interest on the principal was illegal, because…","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"portfolio-types":[35],"class_list":["post-70606","portfolio","type-portfolio","status-publish","hentry","portfolio-types-our-news"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n