Polish borrowers and banks await a European Court of Justice ruling on Swiss franc mortgages that could significantly impact Polish legal precedents.
Five Questions to the ECJ
On January 22, the Court of Justice of the European Union will announce another ruling in the case of Swiss franc mortgages. This time, the ECJ will answer five questions from the District Court in Warsaw (C-902/24), mainly concerning set-off of claims, payment “just in case” demands, and court costs. Although this will not be the first ruling by the court in the case of francs, its significance will still be large.
Legal Interpretation Questions
Polish court asked whether, in connection with the recognition of a mortgage loan agreement as void in its entirety, Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of the directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as well as the principles of effectiveness, equivalence, proportionality and legal certainty, should be interpreted in such a way that they stand in the way of judicial interpretation of national provisions.
The court specifically asked whether these principles prevent the following interpretations:
1) In a consumer claim against a bank for the return of the equivalent of loan installments, the bank can raise a valid objection to the set-off of its claim for the return of the equivalent of the loan capital with the consumer’s claim.
2) The bank can effectively raise the set-off objection as an alternative defense, while claiming the loan agreement is valid.
3) The bank can effectively demand that the consumer return the equivalent of the loan capital paid under the invalid agreement.
4) The bank can set a two-week deadline for the consumer to return the equivalent of the entire loan capital.
5) Whether the consumer will be burdened with part of the court costs to the extent that the claim for payment was dismissed due to the consideration of the set-off objection raised by the bank.
Potential Effects of Ruling
Both bank lawyers and those representing frankowicze believe that the ruling may affect established Polish case law regarding set-offs and interest on arrears. According to Wojciech Wandzel, lawyer and partner at KKG Legal representing banks, the district court is seeking to deprive credit lenders of the possibility of using the set-off defense, which would be equivalent to depriving them of the right to court.
Wandzel warns that the ECJ ruling may cause further interpretative turmoil, similar to what happened with the Lubreczlik case ruling in June 2025. In contrast, Marcin Szołajski, legal advisor from Szołajski Legal Group, believes this will be another favorable ruling for frankowicze.
Szołajski argues that banks are raising their set-off objections ineffectively since they simultaneously maintain that loan agreements are valid. He expects the ECJ to confirm that a bank cannot take both positions at once. Szołajski also points out that banks often send demands for full repayment while consumer cases for contract invalidation are still pending, creating pressure on borrowers.
