Kratka pravna analiza Pravnog shvatanja VKS o punovažnosti valutne klauzule kod ugovora o kreditu u švajcarskim francima i konverziji

Abstract

Posle skoro deset godina od nastanka problema s ugovorima o kreditu indeksiranim u švajcarskim francima, početkom aprila ove godine o punovažnosti u njima sadržane valutne klauzule izjasnio se pravnim shvatanjem Vrhovni kasacioni sud. Prema shvatanju VKS, valutna klauzula u evrima je punovažna jer samo tada služi zaštiti načela ekvivalencije uzajamnih davanja, a u švajcarskim francima je ništava, osim ako banka dokaže da se i sama zadužila u švajcarskim francima da bi odobrila kredit, te da je unapred pismeno upozorila korisnika kredita na sve rizike i pravnoekonomske posledice ugovaranja valutne klauzule u CHF. Ugovori u kreditu s CHF valutnom klauzulom, međutim, konvertiraju u dozvoljene ugovore o kreditu s EUR valutnom klauzulom, i to od samog početka, a dok se ne primeni konverzija sudovi treba da usvajaju pravna sredstva usmerena na onemogućavanje realizacije sredstava obezbeđenja. Analiza pokazuje da je stav o punovažnosti valutne klauzule u evrima ispravan, ali da sadrži nekorektnu logičku redukciju, da stav o ništavosti CHF klauzule po svemu sudeći nije pravnologički dobro zasnovan i ne može da uspešno izdrži kritiku, te da su stavovi o konverziji i privremenoj suspenziji izvršenja, manje-više ispravni. Obrazloženje pravnog shvatanja objavljeno je 15 dana posle samog stava, i napisano je na metodološki nedopustiv način, uz brojne manjkavosti, kako u tehničkom smislu (upućivanje na pogrešne odredbe i nekorektno navođenje sudskih odluka) tako, što je još važnije, u pravnologičkom i uopšte logičkom smislu. Zaključak analize je da je, uprkos nesumnjivim manjkavostima i nelogičnostima u samom pravnom shvatanju, njegova najveća manjkavost, zapravo, način na koji je ono obrazloženo, odnosno način na koji Vrhovni kasacioni sud smatra da može da usvaja i obrazlaže svoja pravna shvatanja koja imaju ogroman praktičan značaj i domašaj.

After nearly a decade from the outbreak of the problem related to credit agreements indexed in Swiss francs, in early April of this year the Supreme Court of Cassation took position on the issue of validity of the foreign currency clause contained therein. According to the SCC opinion, the foreign currency clause related to Euros is valid, because only in case of Euros it serves to protection of the principle of equal value of mutual obligations, and in Swiss francs it is null and void, except in case the bank proves that it has itself taken a loan in Swiss francs in order to grant a credit, and that it has warned the credit user, in writing and in advance, on all risks and legal and economic consequences of contracting the CHF foreign currency clause. Credit Agreements with currency clause in CHF, however, convert in the valid credit agreements with currency clause in EUR, and from the very beginning, and until this conversion is applied the courts should grant legal remedies aimed at delaying the collection of the security rights. The analysis shows that the position on the validity of EUR foreign currency clause is correct, but that it contains an incorrect logical reduction, that the position on nullity of CHF clause seems not to be well grounded in the sense of legal reasoning and that it cannot survive a critical analysis, and that the positions on conversion and temporary suspension of enforcement are more or less correct. The reasoning of the legal opinion was published 15 days after the opinion itself, and it was written in a methodologically unacceptable manner, with many deficiencies, both in technical (errors in quoting statutory provisions and case law) and, which is even more worrying, in the sense of legal and general logic. The conclusion of the analysis is that, despite obvious deficiencies and illogicalities in the legal opinion, its bigger deficiency is, in fact, the manner in which it was justified (the reasoning), respectively the manner in which the Supreme Court of Cassation considers it is entitled to adopt and justify its legal opinions that have an immense practical significance and outreach.