The Court of Justice of the European Union has stated unequivocally that the customer must return the capital received. In a series of rulings issued on 16 April 2026 in cases C-752/24 (Jangielak), C-753/24 (Rzepacz), and C-901/24 (Falucka), the CJEU confirmed an interpretation broadly favorable to the banking sector.
In practice, this means there should be no extremely unfair judgments under which some customers could effectively obtain “free apartments.” At the same time, the CJEU confirmed that banks’ counterclaims are fully justified, according to the position presented by the Polish Bank Association.
In case C-752/24 (Jangielak), the Court confirmed that EU law does not preclude an approach under which a bank may effectively seek repayment of capital even if it filed its claim before the proceedings concerning the invalidity of the loan agreement had been finally concluded. This ruling strengthens legal certainty in commercial dealings and confirms that consumer protection cannot deprive one of the parties of a genuine opportunity to pursue its claims.
In case C-901/24 (Falucka), the Court confirmed that a consumer’s statement acknowledging awareness of the consequences of the invalidity of the agreement may be relevant when assessing the limitation period for the bank’s claim. This also fits into an approach under which the settlement of the consequences of an invalid agreement should take into account the rights of both parties and should not lead to disproportionate outcomes.
In case C-753/24 (Rzepacz), the Court held that EU law does not exclude national solutions allowing a court, in exceptional circumstances, to disregard the limitation period applicable to a bank’s claim if considerations of equity so require. This means that, in this area as well, national courts retain the ability to take into account the specific circumstances of an individual case.
Following these rulings, the chances of a consumer successfully raising the defense that the bank’s claim is time-barred appear minimal. This applies both to situations in which the bank has taken procedural steps to recover capital and to cases in which importance is attached to statements made by the consumer or to special equitable considerations assessed by the court. In each of these areas, the Court endorsed solutions that strengthen the predictability of settlements and limit the risk of an unjustified avoidance of the obligation to return capital.
These rulings are important not only for the banking sector, but also for legal certainty in commercial transactions and for the predictability of settlements following the invalidation of loan agreements. They confirm that the consequences of invalidity should be settled in a manner that respects the rights of both parties, without creating an unjustified procedural advantage for either side.
After these judgments, one may speak of a fundamental clarification of disputes surrounding limitation periods. This should translate into greater stability in domestic case law, fewer disputes concerning the limitation mechanism itself, and greater predictability in rulings on settlements following the invalidation of loan agreements.
This direction in the case law is also expected to encourage greater use of settlements as a rational and predictable way of resolving disputes.
“Justice has been served. The CJEU has ended the dream of free apartments,” said Tadeusz Białek after the three rulings concerning the limitation of banks’ claims. He added that the CJEU did not undermine the fundamental principles of the legal order. Banks retain the right to recover the disbursed capital as a basic element of the balance between the parties to a legal relationship, and they are entitled to pursue claims in court through so-called counterclaims.
