Bankers need to have the customers' consent in order to scrap the addenda created based on Ordinance 50, on making retail loan costs more transparent, even if they were not signed by the debtors and were considered as tacitly accepted, say Constitutional Court judges.
"The provisions stating that addenda not signed by customers will produce their effects in line with their terms, barring the situation where consumers or lenders notify the other party to the contrary (...) need to be interpreted as requiring the consumer's consent to the above-mentioned notification," note the judges of the Constitutional Court in the decision on the claim of unconstitutionality of law 288/2010 connected to Ordinance 50, brought by several deputies.
They filed a claim to the Constitutional Court, saying the law does not comply with the bicameralism principle because the original form of the ordinance was modified through amendments that were not also submitted with the Senate (only with the Chamber of Deputies i.e.). The law was declared unconstitutional, with judges ruling that the amendments in question did not bring a radical change to the original text.
The law based on the ordinance however no longer applies to ongoing loans, with the exception of provisions on capping the early repayment fee. From the customers' perspective, this was in fact the most important provision of the ordinance.
Bankers need to have the customers' consent in order to scrap the addenda created based on Ordinance 50, on making retail loan costs more transparent, even if they were not signed by the debtors and were considered as tacitly accepted, say Constitutional Court judges.
"The provisions stating that addenda not signed by customers will produce their effects in line with their terms, barring the situation where consumers or lenders notify the other p
