Showing posts from November, 2019

Early repayment of the loan: Borrower's right to reduction in the total cost of the credit and bank's compensation right

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M. The right of early repayment of the loan by the borrower is enshrined in both European law and national legal systems. There are essentially two main effects of this right’s exercise: On the one hand, the consumer/ borrower is entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the credit consisting of interest and charges for the remaining period of the contract. On the other hand, the bank shall be entitled to reasonable and objectively justified compensation for any costs directly linked to early repayment of the credit, provided that the early repayment is made within the period for which the borrowing rate is fixed. (Article 16 (1) of Directive 2008/48). Bank’s compensation The relative clauses used by most banks regarding the issue of early repayment of the loan are vaguely worded and non-transparent and have therefore been repeatedly declared illegal, unfair and abusive. It is commonly stated that compensation includes any costs, expenses, losse

Late notification of hearing date: applicant was unable to reply to opinion of advocate-general at Court of Cassation

Αn important decision on the right of the arrested or detained person to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention has issued on 22.10.2019 the European Court of Human Rights. According to Article 5(4) οf the European Convention of Human Rights, “everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful”. Systematically the above provision is subject to the more general right to liberty and security (Article 5) In ECHR’s Chamber judgment in the case of Venet v. Belgium (application no. 27703/16) the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned proceedings in which the Applicant unsuccessfully challenged his pre-trial detention. He complained that he had been unable to attend the Court of Cassation’s hearing o