Banca Comerciala Romana (BCR) a fost reclamata la Curtea Europeana a Drepturilor Omului (CEDO) de catre cinci clienti care au pierdut un proces cu banca privind clauzele abuzive din contractele de credit, fiind reprezentati de un specialist in cazurile CEDO, avocata Diana-Elena Dragomir.

Anuntul privind inregistrarea dosarului la CEDO a fost facut ieri de Gheorghe Piperea, avocatul care a initiat procesele colective impotriva BCR, unul dintre ele fiind castigat la Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie (ICCJ), insa al doilea, pe aceeasi tema, a clauzelor abuzive, a fost pierdut, ceea ce ar putea fi o practica neunitara chiar a instantei supreme responsabila de asigurarea unei practici unitare.

De altfel, si in spetele privind creditele in franci elvetieni (CHF), ICCJ a emis decizii contradictorii.

Conform dosarului publicat de CEDO, intitulat Bradateanu si altii v. Romania, subiectul acestui caz sunt tocmai deciziile contradictorii ale ICCJ in procesele privind clauzele abuzive.

Reclamantii se plang, mai exact, de decizia ICCJ din 23 martie 2016 prin care clientilor BCR li s-a respins in totalitate cererile, instanta suprema stabilind ca prevederile contractelor de credit au fost “legale si negociate.”

Cu toate acestea, in cazuri similiare, ICCJ a emis dicizii potrivit carora clauzele contractuale sunt abuzive si au obligat banca sa-si despagubeasca clientii.

Clientii BCR au adresat CEDO trei intrebari, formulate alambicat si in termeni foarte specializati, astfel incat le redam in original, in engleza:

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants had a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, in so far as similar actions before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as well as before various courts of appeal, concerning the interpretation of the terms of the credit agreements concluded by various claimants with the Romanian Commercial Bank, had different outcomes?

2. Was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court’s case-law in the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention (see for instance Albu and Others v. Romania, nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, 10 May 2012), complied with by the domestic courts?

3. Have the applicants been subject to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, having regard to the fact that in respect of other claimants’ similar actions before the domestic courts, the latter found that the contractual terms in question were neither “legal” nor “negotiated” and therefore unfair (abusive)?

In februarie 2017, ICCJ a respins o cerere de revizuire a unei sentinte in favoarea BCR intr-un proces colectiv cu peste 120 de persoane reprezentate de avocatul Gheorghe Piperea, care a acuzat banca de practici abuzive pentru practicarea unor dobanzi netransparente in contractele de credite imobiliare in euro.

Este vorba de vechea dobanda din contractele de credit ale BCR (Dobanda de Referinta Variabila – DRV), despre care clientii spun ca a fost majorata dupa bunul plac al bancii si nu in functie de indicele transparent pentru euro (EURIBOR), care a scazut sub 0% dupa izbucnirea crizei din 2008. (vezi aici detalii)

Responsabilii cu comunicarea ai BCR nu au raspuns la intrebarile trimise de Bancherul.ro privind acest subiect.