Rules of Procedure, clarity of norms, contractual freedom, legal certainty, property rights and equality of rights are also violated by CXXI of 2011 on Final Repayment. Good Finance learned the position of the Good Banking Association.
The banks have requested the Constitutional Court to retroactively repeal the law. We also asked the Constitutional Court. We have learned that the petition is not at any stage, even when it is being discussed.
Early repayment law
The Good Banking Association does not comment on the petition filed with the Constitutional Court last week against the early repayment law, but Good Finance has learned quite a few details about the document. Below, based on our information, we summarize the substance of the petition, which was requested by the Good Banking Association for out-of-court discussion.
The final repayment is the 2011 CXXI. The Association has requested that it be retroactively annulled. According to the banks, the primary issue is the procedural rules, as they are a serious violation of the law, as they were created without prior impact assessment and without mandatory consultation. In addition, neither the method of parliamentary approval nor the accelerated entry into force were in line with the Constitution, and the measure does not take into account the requirement of clarity of norms.
According to the petition of the Constitutional Court, the law can be regarded as unconstitutional in the alternative because it violates fundamental rights. According to the organization, the repayment is severely unconstitutional for several reasons:
Violates Contractual Freedom
According to the Good Banking Association, the law addresses a non-social problem by focusing on well-off and creditworthy clients without justification. They pointed out that exchange rate changes do not affect creditors unilaterally, nor do they bring profits to banks (who put money out of policyholders and depositors). According to our information, the banks indicated that the possibility of exchange rate fluctuations was foreseeable and not one-way. According to the banks, therefore, the principle of a guaranteed market economy in Article 9 of the Constitution is violated.
Undermining legal certainty
the law subsequently calls into question the obligation to comply with existing contracts, in breach of the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution. This causes damage and risks to the operation of the economy as a whole.
Violation of the right to property A claim (credit claim) also means property, so the law also violates the right to property. According to the banks, the damage caused is great and causes imbalances in private property, since the state has not proved that it is an overriding public interest and has not introduced any compensation rules.
Infringement of Equality
The date of termination of the contract is determined by law to be in violation of the prohibition of constitutional discrimination.
There is no public information yet on the handling of the petition, however, according to constitutional lawyers who previously stated to Good Finance, the government decision on early repayment, which not only with the Constitution in force but also with the new Basic Law coming into effect, is indeed blatant.