News

On October 3, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a verdict that may have a revolutionary impact on the current jurisprudence of the courts regarding CHF loans in Poland.

Our legal team has been monitoring the jurisprudence practice of Polish courts in matters related to foreign currency loan agreements for quite a long time now.

However, rulings issued so far have not always been beneficial for consumers. A favorable judgment of the CJEU may change this trend, and as a result the chances of CHF mortgages loan holders in court disputes with banks will increase.

In the opinion of the CJEU, all unlawful clauses should be “removed” from CHF agreements, without replacing them. However, if the removal of these contractual terms results in a change in the nature and subject matter of this contract, it may be considered void. A contract without illegal clauses may continue to apply only if it complies with national law.

In the coming weeks, the legal office’s team will be analyzing loan agreements concluded by our clients with the banks: mBank S.A. (formerly: BRE Bank S.A.), Santander Bank Polska S.A. (formerly: Bank Zachodni WBK S.A.), PKO BP, Getin Noble Bank S.A.

With the current situation on the labour market, a good employee is at a premium. Nevertheless, employers sometimes still terminate the employment contract without notice due to the employee’s fault.

The basic provision that covers “disciplinary dismissal” is Art. 52 of the Labour Code.

It provides for three main reasons for giving a disciplinary dismissal statement to an employee, but in practice the most common is the use of the first of the grounds listed in this provision, i.e. “a serious violation by the employee of basic employee obligations”.

One of the common mistakes is insufficient clarification of the reason for termination of the contract. This error includes both shortcomings in the indication of which (specifically!) obligation was violated by the employee, as well as what his alleged breach was exactly.

It is not disputed that the “employer’s obligation to indicate in the statement on termination of employment without notice due to the fault of the employee the reason justifying this solution means that it should be determined in a way that clearly indicates what in the opinion of the employer, employee’s breach was exactly” (vide judgment of the Supreme Court of 14 December 1999, I PKN 444/99, OSNAPiUS 2001, No. 9, item 313).

According to the current court jurisprudence, the reason indicated by the employer should be clear and understandable for the employee familiarising himself with the statement. The reason – even if it is real – should also be verifiable and articulated in an understandable way.

An equally common mistake of employers is going for “quantity, not quality”. Listing many superficial reasons for terminating the employment contract, may – in case of litigation –  not work in the employer’s favour. Therefore, it is worth paying special attention to the preparation of such a document to increase your chances in the event of a possible trial.