Croatian opposition slams Supreme Court ruling on Swiss franc loans as 'mockery'

Croatian opposition parties have voiced strong criticism following a Supreme Court decision regarding loans converted from Swiss francs. The ruling allows consumers to claim interest on overpaid amounts but denies them the return of the principal, a decision the parties deem a "mockery of citizens."

Siniša Hajdaš Dončić, leader of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), stated on Facebook that such a ruling would not have occurred under an SDP government. He asserted that the SDP's previous "Swiss franc law" had cornered banks and demonstrated the state's ability to protect its citizens. Hajdaš Dončić described the court's decision as a "pure catastrophe" and accused Prime Minister Andrej Plenković of allowing the "banking lobby to play its game." He further alleged that Plenković enabled banks to extract six billion euros in profits from Croatia during a recent crisis and criticized the prime minister for remaining silent on the issue.

The party Most echoed these sentiments, expressing "deep disappointment and concern." They argued that the decision effectively deprives hundreds of thousands of Croatian citizens of the right to a full refund for money overcharged based on void contractual clauses. Most highlighted the "absurd legal situation" where citizens are granted interest on unlawfully collected sums but are denied the return of those sums themselves. The party stated that this conclusion "offends not only legal logic but also the basic sense of justice."

Most acknowledged the dissenting opinion of reporting judge Jadranko Jug and four other judges, calling their opinion "exhaustive, well-argued, and legally founded." The party noted that Jug had faced "strong public pressure and attacks" for months. Most also raised "serious questions" about the participation of judges Vesna Barać-Ručević, Gordana Paulić, and Marina Magud, citing public information about familial and professional ties between their relatives and the banking sector. They believe this involvement further eroded public trust in the impartiality of the judicial process.