Thirteen clauses of the Societe Generale mortgage loan agreement were characterized as abusive and opaque by a relevant decision issued by the Nicosia District Court. The decision examines one by one the 14 terms of the contract that were considered abusive by the Director of the Consumer Protection Service, judging 13 of them to be abusive and opaque. Only in one case the decision deems that the term was wrongly deemed abusive by the Director of the Consumer Service and this concerns the manner of notification that can be given to the debtor. The decision refers to terms which, in addition to ambiguity, upset the contractual balance to the detriment of the consumer, against the requirements of good faith and to terms that indirectly cause the interest rate to rise in a way that does not allow the consumer to be informed of the actual annual interest rate. .
READ ALSO: Conviction for unfair bank clauses
“Taking into account the positions of the director in his preliminary decision, the answers of the lawyers of the defendant in the application, as well as the final decision of the Director and having in mind the statements of both parties regarding these clauses is the “My position is that the disputed clauses of the contracts, as I have reached in my decision above, are abusive and opaque”, the judge notes in his decision. The contractual terms in question concern in particular, issues of gradual loan disbursement, interest rate calculations, the right of the Bank to request full repayment of the loan at any time and without giving reasons and giving a deadline to the consumer, the right of the Bank to change the key interest rate, the euribor or labor interest rate and its duration, surcharges, interest on arrears, commissions or banking rights of the Bank and the right of the Bank to unilaterally change the amount of interest rates, charges and commissions.
As stated, “the question that needs to be answered now is whether, in the event that a specific clause is found to be abusive, the contract can exist without the abusive or abusive clauses.” In the present case, the judge expresses the view that in view of the multitude of terms of the contract that have been deemed abusive and / or opaque, this contract cannot continue to be valid and enforceable.
