Called Meeting of the Civil Department on CHF Loans, Outcome Uncertain

Damir Kontrec, the president of the Civil Department of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, has called a meeting of the department for October 7, titled ‘Content of Reasoning in Conversion Cases – Discussion and Agreement’. The agenda was not specified in the invitation, making it unclear what exactly will be discussed and what repercussions the meeting might have. In response to our inquiry, the Supreme Court stated that the agenda has not yet been adopted and that conclusions will be published after the meeting.

Diametrically Opposed Positions

It can be assumed that the discussion will revolve around whether the ruling of the fourth chamber of the Supreme Court from April of this year, which decided that consumers with converted loans are entitled only to default interest up to the date of conversion, aligns judicial practice in cases related to the Swiss franc. However, given the diametrically opposed positions among judges regarding the ‘Swiss franc’, it is difficult to expect that the meeting will reach a final agreement on this issue. Unofficially, we learn that another chamber of the Supreme Court may soon request a meeting of the extended chamber, which can unify judicial practice. Indeed, in one case, a meeting of the extended chamber had already been requested, but instead of making a decision, the procedure was suspended in the spring of this year because the bank withdrew the requested revision.

Since no resolution of the ‘Swiss franc’ issue is in sight at the Supreme Court, it seems that the first ruling will be made by the Constitutional Court. This is also indicated by lawyer Igor Metelko, who represents consumers in disputes against banks and recently filed a constitutional complaint against the aforementioned ruling of the Supreme Court Rev-925/23 from April 8, 2025, which awards only default interest.

Awaiting the Decision of the Constitutional Court

– Unfortunately, given the inconsistent positions of the judges of the Supreme Court, I do not expect a unified legal understanding at that level, but rather a decision from the Constitutional Court. Currently, there are at least four lawsuits related to converted CHF loans pending there, the last of which should be the one I submitted to the Constitutional Court last week. I believe that the Constitutional Court will consolidate these cases into one and make a decision in the near future, Metelko believes.

The Constitutional Court can dismiss or reject the constitutional complaint, but it can also determine a violation of a constitutional right (e.g., the right to a fair trial), explain its position, and return the case for reconsideration, with courts obliged to act according to that decision. Such an approach has already been applied in the ‘Frank case’ (assessment of the nullity of the currency clause in a collective dispute). The duration of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court depends on the court’s workload; from the filing of the complaint to the decision, it usually takes about a year to a year and a half, with cases of particular social and public significance expected to be prioritized.