A 71-year-old Polish woman is battling a debt exceeding four times the amount of a 25,000 złoty loan due to exorbitant fees imposed by a lending company.
Loan Terms and Initial Debt
The case concerns a 25,000 złoty loan taken out by a 62-year-old woman over 48 months. According to a statement from the Ombudsman for Civil Rights (RPO), the contract with the “specialized company” obligated her to repay a total of 55,392 złoty, representing 222% of the amount she actually received.
Legal Proceedings and Enforcement
One year after the agreement, the lender initiated debt collection proceedings, demanding approximately 37,000 złoty within 30 days. Three years later, a district court issued a judgment ordering the woman to repay the loan with interest.
Debt Accumulation and Current Status
By the time of the judgment, the woman had repaid over 18,000 złoty, and at least another 39,000 złoty had been collected from her and transferred to the creditor. The company is currently seeking an additional 60,000 złoty in enforcement proceedings.
RPO Concerns Over Disproportionate Costs
The RPO indicates that if the full amount is recovered, the lending firm will receive four times the amount originally loaned to the consumer, and potentially more due to accruing interest.
Pensioner’s Financial Situation
The 71-year-old woman now lives on a reduced pension due to wage garnishments. Given her current income, she is unlikely to ever be able to repay the continually growing debt, which currently totals over 36,000 złoty in principal and over 25,000 złoty in interest.
RPO Appeal to Supreme Court
The RPO has appealed the district court’s ruling in its entirety, filing an extraordinary complaint with the Supreme Court (SN). The complaint alleges violations of constitutional consumer protection principles and numerous provisions of the Civil Code.
Systematic Exploitation Allegations
The RPO states that the company systematically imposed maximum non-interest costs on consumers, equal to or nearly equal to the loan amount, regardless of its size. The RPO considers the company’s benefits to be “grossly inequitable” and a violation of good practices and the consumer’s interests.
Consumer Vulnerability and State Responsibility
The RPO argues that the consumer may have believed her interests were adequately protected by the state, as non-bank lending was permitted.
Court’s Duty to Assess Fairness
According to the RPO, the district court was obligated to first assess the validity of the company’s claim and whether consumer protection laws had been violated. Upon examining the contract, the court should have recognized that the non-interest costs were “grossly excessive and obviously disproportionate” to the loan amount.
RPO Requests and Suspension of Execution
The RPO has requested the complete annulment of the district court’s ruling, a referral of the case for re-examination, and a suspension of the execution of the ruling pending the SN’s proceedings.
Extraordinary Appeal Mechanism
The institution of the extraordinary appeal was introduced during the PiS government through a law on the Supreme Court, which came into effect in April 2018. Eligible parties, including the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsman, can file it within five years of the final judgment, or within one year of the cassation’s decision.
Grounds for Extraordinary Appeal
An extraordinary appeal can be filed against a final court ruling if it is necessary “to ensure consistency with the principle of a democratic state of law implementing the principles of social justice.” It can also be filed if the ruling violates constitutional rights and freedoms, misinterprets or misapplies the law, or demonstrates a clear inconsistency between the court’s findings and the evidence.
Potential Abolition of Extraordinary Appeal
The abolition of the extraordinary appeal mechanism was included in a draft “rule of law” act proposed by the Ministry of Justice, aiming to address the effects of decisions made by the National Council of the Judiciary between 2018 and 2025.
Ministry of Justice’s Justification
The Ministry of Justice argued that the extraordinary appeal was an exception to the finality of judgments and was used as a disguised “appeal,” allowing for the re-examination of cases, including factual matters. The Ministry also announced changes to address problems with inconsistent and “unfair” rulings issued in the practice of handling extraordinary appeals.