The courts in Cluj-Napoca found that certain clauses included in a credit agreement with BRD Groupe Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale S.A.<\/strong> were abusive. Accordingly, the court ordered the annulment of clauses concerning the loan file preparation fee, the monthly management fee, and the credit administration fee. The court further ordered the bank to reimburse the amounts paid by the borrower under those contractual provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, an individual entered into a credit contract of \u20ac22,000<\/strong> over 300 months with a Romanian bank. Besides the principal repayment obligation and interest, the agreement included various clauses imposing additional financial burdens on the borrower.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Specifically:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given these terms, the borrower approached Brisc Legal\u2019s attorneys specializing in financial and banking litigation, requesting courts to annul those clauses and reclaim all sums paid under them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court competent to adjudicate the dispute \u2014 Cluj-Napoca Court<\/strong> \u2014 ruled in favor of the borrower, granting fully the claims submitted in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A first matter addressed by the court was that the credit agreement was a standard preformulated contract<\/strong>, giving rise to a rebuttable presumption<\/strong> (under Law 193\/2000, art. 4(3)) that the challenged clauses were not individually negotiated. The bank had the burden to prove negotiation of those clauses, which it did not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the clause for the file preparation commission, the court noted that nowhere in the credit agreement was the method by which the approx. \u20ac400 was determined explained. Because of this lack of transparency, it was impossible to verify whether the fee represented a genuine counterperformance by the bank. Coupled with the failure of the bank to show that it was negotiated, the court declared that clause abusive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In respect of the monthly management commission (0.10% of the loan amount), even though the bank argued that it compensated a service provided, the court found that the commission was fixed without regard to actual performance or services. The commission was independent of any service and imposed a significant imbalance<\/strong> versus the consumer, so it was declared abusive and null.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the addendum introduced the administration commission (0.10% of the outstanding balance), replacing the management commission, the court similarly found an imbalance in rights and obligations. The bank asserted that its administrative services (account management, monthly updates, automatic collections) justified the fee. But the court rejected this: such services are largely automatic, and the commission cannot be imposed as a separate, fixed burden in addition to interest. Thus, that clause also was annulled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In conclusion, the court annulled the three types of commission clauses and ordered:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Study: Annulment of Abusive Clauses in a Credit Agreement Cluj Attorney Brisc Legal: Objectives Achieved The courts in Cluj-Napoca found that certain clauses included in a credit agreement with BRD Groupe Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale S.A. were abusive. Accordingly, the court ordered the annulment of clauses concerning the loan file preparation fee, the monthly management fee, … <\/p>\n\n
Court\u2019s Finding of Abusive Clauses: Solution<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
File Preparation Fee<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Management and Administration Commissions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n