The President of the Polish Banks Association addressed pressing issues for the sector he represents. “I consider it harmful to pit banks against consumers,” states Tadeusz Białek, emphasizing the threat posed by the penalty of free credit. The content of his statement is published below.
I would prefer not to engage in a dispute with the President of UOKiK. I respect the Office’s role in consumer protection and believe that in matters as crucial as the consumer credit market, a factual discussion is needed, not an escalation of tension between institutions. For 35 years, the Polish Banks Association has participated in legislative processes as a professional business chamber. Our role is to present substantive arguments, market data, and the consequences of proposed regulations — for clients, courts, the financial sector, and the entire economy.
I disagree with the assertion that the banking sector’s participation in public consultations can be reduced to lobbying against consumers. Consultations are precisely for market participants, social organizations, state bodies, and experts to point out the practical effects of proposed solutions. However, I have the impression that in this debate, alleged mistakes of other participants in the legislative process are too easily identified, while mistakes in the law-making process itself are too rarely recognized.
Criticism and concerns regarding regulations
The KNF is criticized for looking at the market more broadly than just from the perspective of consumer protection, also considering financial system stability. Academics and experts with whom the sector seeks to develop proportional and practically applicable solutions are criticized. Organizations representing market participants — like ZBP — are criticized, even though they are the ones indicating the real consequences of regulations during consultations. Meanwhile, a professional legislative process should involve weighing various values: consumer protection, legal certainty, market stability, court efficiency, and financing availability.
Consumer protection and the stability of the banking sector are not opposing values. A strong, secure, and well-supervised banking sector is one of the conditions for effective customer protection. Consumers do not benefit from regulations that lead to legal chaos, mass litigation, interpretational uncertainty, or restricted credit availability. Customers are the foundation of banks’ operations, and customer trust is the sector’s most important asset. Therefore, I consider it detrimental to pit banks against consumers. It is in the interest of customers, banks, and the state for market rules to be transparent and stable.
Free credit penalty: a systemic problem
The best example of a legal quality problem is the free credit penalty. We have been publicly presenting our analyses and proposals regarding this penalty since 2024. We operate on a simple logic: since in the last 3-4 years, regulations on the free credit penalty have formed the basis for approximately 25,000 court cases, 15 preliminary rulings, including seven already concluded, and 2 requests to the Supreme Court to resolve a legal issue, the problem does not lie in individual agreements or individual lenders. It is a systemic problem stemming from the unclear and disproportionate construction of the regulations and should be resolved systemically — i.e., by improving the regulations.
Banks do not expect a lack of accountability. They expect proportional accountability. A serious infringement of consumer interests is one thing, while an interpretational dispute or a technical omission that had no real impact on the customer’s decision or their ability to assess the scope of the obligation is another. This logic was also confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-472/23, indicating that the penalty cannot be applied automatically for every infringement but must remain proportional to the gravity of the violation and its significance for the consumer.
Therefore, it is untrue that the banking sector aims to “pull the teeth” of the free credit penalty.
We are talking about the need to regulate it. The penalty should be real and effective, but it cannot be an automatic instrument detached from the nature of the infringement. The law should distinguish between serious infringements of consumer interests and disputes over the interpretation of regulations. Otherwise, we are creating a system that, instead of protecting customers, generates mass court proceedings and encourages taking every dispute to court.
The phenomenon of mass consumer disputes
The phenomenon growing around consumer disputes cannot be ignored either. If regulations are ambiguous and disproportionate, a market emerges where entities specializing in handling mass disputes often become greater beneficiaries than consumers.
Consumer protection should not be based on a business model that generates conflict between the customer and the financial institution.
In Poland, we have an extensive catalog of consumer protection institutions and mechanisms: UOKiK, the Financial Ombudsman, KNF, Municipal and District Consumer Ombudsmen, and ADR bodies. The customer protection system should be based on clear law and efficient state institutions, not on a mass dispute market.
It is also worth remembering that banks operate within a specific legal and institutional environment. As a sector, we expect a certain continuity in the state authorities’ policies. If certain practices have been accepted, tolerated, or confirmed in the positions of authorities, case law, or stances of public institutions for years, then when the interpretation changes later, the principle of legal certainty and trust in the state cannot be ignored. This is not just an argument for the banking sector. It is the foundation of stable economic turnover.
This was the case with the so-called currency loans. For years, loans denominated and indexed to foreign currencies operated within a regulatory environment where state authorities did not question the admissibility of such products. After years, this practice was fundamentally challenged in case law, with far-reaching consequences for the sector, courts, and clients. We see a similar problem today with the financing of loan costs. For years, a certain model was part of market practice and was analyzed in light of the positions of authorities and public institutions. If the interpretation changes after some time, a responsible state should consider not only consumer protection but also legal certainty, regulatory predictability, and systemic effects.
The implementation of CCD2 should be an opportunity to regulate the consumer credit market. However, it should not repeat the mistakes that are already leading to mass disputes and systemic risks today. We need a law prepared calmly, with a thorough assessment of regulatory impacts, taking into account the perspectives of consumers, courts, public institutions, and lenders. Good law cannot be written against one side of the market. Good law should build trust, predictability, and real customer protection.
ZBP is ready for dialogue with the Ministry of Finance, UOKiK, KNF, the Financial Ombudsman, academics, and consumer organizations. We do not expect a law “for banks.” We expect a law that is good for the market: clear, proportional, enforceable, and resistant to abuse. Accountability — yes. Automatismo, legal uncertainty, and judicial chaos — no. Only such an approach truly serves consumers, the financial sector, and the economy.
Thank you for reading our article to the end. Stay up to date! Follow us on Google.