LegalPost.eu

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

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

Article By Paris Hadjipanayis, Lawyer Ιn a recent high profile case ( C-260/18 ) adjudicated by the first instance court of Warsaw, Poland, a preliminary question was forwarded to the European Court of Justice on the 03/10/2019 to decide on a number of questions regarding the effect of abusive consumer clauses inserted in a mortgage loan, specifically with reference to the issuing of a loan in Swiss Francs (CHF) currency and released in national (PLN) currency. The question concerned the fate of such a consumer clause, whether it could be enforceable and if not whether abolition could grant the right to a National court to insert provisions from national (domestic) applicable legislation to fill in the gaps and protect the contract as well as the consumer. The matter of interest rate also became relevant to this question as the interest imposed originally was the one based on the reference point of LIBOR CHF 3M and the usual marginal profit of the lending bank. The applicant

Ι n the case of Pastörs v. Germany (application no. 55225/14) the European Court of Human Rights held on 3.10.2019, unanimously, that the applicant’s complaint under Article 10 (freedom of expression) was manifestly ill-founded and had to be rejected, and, by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the conviction of a Land deputy for denying the Holocaust during a speech in the regional Parliament. The Court found in particular that the applicant had intentionally stated untruths to defame Jews. Such statements could not attract the protection for freedom of speech offered by the Convention as they ran counter to the values of the Convention itself. There was thus no appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights and the complaint was inadmissible. The Court also examined a complaint by the applicant of judicial bias as one of the Court of Appeal judges who

European Commission decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the EU regarding the new disciplinary regime for Polish judges, requesting an expedited procedure. On 3 April 2019, the Commission launched this infringement procedure on the grounds that the new disciplinary regime undermines the judicial independence of Polish judges and does not ensure the necessary guarantees to protect judges from political control, as required by the Court of Justice of the EU. Specifically, the Polish law allows ordinary court judges to be subjected to disciplinary investigations, procedures and sanctions on the basis of the content of their judicial decisions, including the exercise of their right under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to request preliminary rulings from the Court of Justice of the EU. Moreover, the new disciplinary regime does not guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court,

The Greek Data Protection Authority has imposed a fine of 150,000 euros on PWC BS A.E. for violations of the General Data Protection Regulation. In particular, the Personal Data Protection Authority, upon a complaint, investigated on its own motion the legality of the processing of the personal data of employees of PWC BS (PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS BUSINESSSOLUTIONS SA) pursuant to which the abovementioned employees were forced to consent to the processing their personal data for three (3) distinct purposes. The Authority considered PWC BS as the controller: 1) has undergone unlawful processing, in breach of the provisions of Article 5 (1) (e); a) of the GDPR (principle of legality), the personal data of its employees, as it applied an inappropriate legal basis under Art. 6 (1)   a   GDPR (consent) instead of the appropriate legal basis for the performance of the contract, compliance with a legal obligation and the superior legal interest (Art. 6 (1), b, c' and g   GDPR). 2

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M. The silence of a suspect or accused person in criminal proceedings is a right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6 (1)). Unfortunately, in some legal systems and in their criminal practice, the defendant's silence is regarded as confession or acceptance of the charge, a practice that is fundamentally affecting the core of his defense rights. The right to silence is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence and its usefulness lies in protecting the accused person from self-incrimination. Monitoring compliance with the right to silence, as well as the related right of self-incrimination, is particularly critical for the offense, that a person is suspected or accused of having committed, but not for example in matters related to identifying a suspect or accused. The essence of the right to remain silent is to prohibit the suspect or the accused person from speaking, answering questions or providing info