Judicial challenge of a bank claim through opposition proceedings
Our firm successfully represented its clients in opposition proceedings against a payment order issued on the basis of a bank claim founded on unfair standard contractual terms.
The Court upheld the opposition and annulled both the payment order and the subsequent payment demand, finding that the underlying claim was based on standard terms of a banking contract that failed to meet the requirements of transparency and clarity under national and EU consumer protection law.
Background of the banking dispute
The dispute arose from a loan agreement pursuant to which the creditor bank issued a payment order for a substantial amount. The claim was calculated on the basis of interest determined under a standard contractual term providing for the use of a 360-day year as the basis for interest calculation.
In the opposition proceedings, it was argued that the specific clause:
-
- was not drafted in a clear and intelligible manner,
-
- did not enable the counterparty to assess the actual financial burden of the contract,
-
- resulted in an additional and non-transparent financial charge on the borrower, and
-
- materially distorted the contractual balance between the parties.
The Court’s assessment of the unfair contractual term
The Court conducted a substantive review of the contested standard term, assessing its compatibility with the principle of transparency and the rules governing unfair contractual terms.
It was held that the method for calculating interest, as provided for in the contract, was insufficiently defined and did not allow the borrower to understand the real economic consequences of the loan relationship. As a result, the clause was found to be unfair and invalid, depriving the bank’s claim of a valid legal basis.
This finding led to the annulment of both the payment order and the related payment demand.
Significance of the decision for banking litigation practice
This decision forms part of a broader line of case law confirming that banking claims are subject to full judicial scrutiny, particularly where they are based on standard terms of loan agreements.
Especially in cases where enforcement proceedings have already been initiated, opposition against a payment order remains a critical procedural remedy, provided that substantive objections to the validity of the claim are raised.
The ruling confirms that issues such as interest calculation methods, contractual transparency, and compliance with consumer protection and EU law may prove decisive in the outcome of banking disputes.
Our firm’s approach
Papatriantafyllou & Thanasenari regularly advises and represents clients in banking disputes, opposition proceedings against payment orders, and complex litigation matters, with a strong focus on substantive legal analysis and the strategic use of case law.
This case exemplifies our approach to matters of high legal and financial significance, where careful scrutiny of contractual terms and procedural precision play a decisive role in achieving successful outcomes.
Related topics: