Bankers need to have the customers' consent in order to scrapthe addenda created based on Ordinance 50, on making retail loancosts more transparent, even if they were not signed by the debtorsand were considered as tacitly accepted, say Constitutional Courtjudges.
"The provisions stating that addenda not signed by customerswill produce their effects in line with their terms, barring thesituation where consumers or lenders notify the other party to thecontrary (...) need to be interpreted as requiring the consumer'sconsent to the above-mentioned notification," note the judges ofthe Constitutional Court in the decision on the claim ofunconstitutionality of law 288/2010 connected to Ordinance 50,brought by several deputies.
They filed a claim to the Constitutional Court, saying the law doesnot comply with the bicameralism principle because the originalform of the ordinance was modified through amendments that were notalso submitted with the Senate (only with the Chamber of Deputiesi.e.). The law was declared unconstitutional, with judges rulingthat the amendments in question did not bring a radical change tothe original text.
The law based on the ordinance however no longer applies to ongoingloans, with the exception of provisions on capping the earlyrepayment fee. From the customers' perspective, this was in factthe most important provision of the ordinance.
Pentru alte știri, analize, articole și informații din business în timp real urmărește Ziarul Financiar pe WhatsApp Channels
