Court Rules AKB Rosbank Violates Borrower’s Rights in Yekaterinburg
23 May 2012 (09:19)
Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court rejected AKB Rosbank’s demand to overrule the verdict returned by Sverdlovsk Region division of Rospotrebnadzor (the state consumer rights watchdog) in Oktyabrsky and Kirovsky Districts of Yekaterinburg that sentenced the bank to a 10,000-ruble fine.
Following a complaint from a consumer named I. Cherepanova, Rospotrebnadzor’s division instituted administrative proceedings and carried out an investigation.
The inquiry revealed that after AKB Rosbank’s merger with Bank Sociйtй Gйnйrale Vostok, on June 15, 2012, all the rights and obligations relating to a car loan agreement with a private individual (signers: Bank Sociйtй Gйnйrale Vostok and I. Cherepanova) were transferred to AKB Rosbank. It was detected that some terms infringing on the legally protected consumer rights had been added to the agreement.
For one, the bank charged a commission for offering the loan in accordance with the creditor’s rates, which violates Russia’s Civil Code; the borrowing party’s life insurance also became obligatory, which violates Russia’s Consumer Rights Protection Act. The bank also made the borrower pay a 0.2% penalty for overdue payments. Then, the agreement stated that in case the circumstances under which the loan agreement had been signed should change dramatically, the creditor had the right to inform the borrower of the changes in writing and consider these changes agreed upon by the borrower if within 20 (twenty) business days there comes no reply. Now this proviso contradicts Article 310 of Russia’s Civil Code.
The results of the administrative inquiry were presented in an administrative offence report, and Rosbank was made to face administrative liability and pay a 10,000-ruble fine.
The bank felt this ruling was illegitimate and took the case to the arbitration court; the latter looked into the case and decided that, with the exception of life insurance issues, the bank’s violating the law had been proved by the available files and this was a valid reason to make it face administrative liability.
Judging by the materials relating to the case, AKB Rosbank chose not to contest the ruling in an appeals court.
Following a complaint from a consumer named I. Cherepanova, Rospotrebnadzor’s division instituted administrative proceedings and carried out an investigation.
The inquiry revealed that after AKB Rosbank’s merger with Bank Sociйtй Gйnйrale Vostok, on June 15, 2012, all the rights and obligations relating to a car loan agreement with a private individual (signers: Bank Sociйtй Gйnйrale Vostok and I. Cherepanova) were transferred to AKB Rosbank. It was detected that some terms infringing on the legally protected consumer rights had been added to the agreement.
For one, the bank charged a commission for offering the loan in accordance with the creditor’s rates, which violates Russia’s Civil Code; the borrowing party’s life insurance also became obligatory, which violates Russia’s Consumer Rights Protection Act. The bank also made the borrower pay a 0.2% penalty for overdue payments. Then, the agreement stated that in case the circumstances under which the loan agreement had been signed should change dramatically, the creditor had the right to inform the borrower of the changes in writing and consider these changes agreed upon by the borrower if within 20 (twenty) business days there comes no reply. Now this proviso contradicts Article 310 of Russia’s Civil Code.
The results of the administrative inquiry were presented in an administrative offence report, and Rosbank was made to face administrative liability and pay a 10,000-ruble fine.
The bank felt this ruling was illegitimate and took the case to the arbitration court; the latter looked into the case and decided that, with the exception of life insurance issues, the bank’s violating the law had been proved by the available files and this was a valid reason to make it face administrative liability.
Judging by the materials relating to the case, AKB Rosbank chose not to contest the ruling in an appeals court.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |