The National Bank of Serbia notes that the state has not committed itself to the International Monetary Fund to resolve the problem between banks and citizens regarding lawsuits for loan processing costs.
The new program of cooperation between Serbia and the IMF with the support of the Policy Coordination Instrument, which was approved by the Board of Executive Directors of the International Monetary Fund at its session held on June 18, is advisory and does not envisage the use of funds. The question of “Politika” is whether, as a state, we have in any way committed to the IMF to solve the problems between banks and citizens regarding lawsuits for the costs of loan processing or other disputed fees.
“On the issue you state, as on any other, the state of Serbia does not commit to the IMF, but the goal, as the IMF itself states, is to preserve macroeconomic stability and implement an ambitious plan of structural reforms. The priority reforms contained in this new program reflect the existing policy and agenda of economic policy makers in Serbia. All reform goals, with a time agenda, are clearly defined and publicly available like all the previous ones, and by looking at them you can see that there are no activities among them that are the subject of your interest,” states the NBS.
It should be reminded that the IMF mission stated in its statement issued in April after the meeting with the representatives of Serbia, before concluding a new advisory arrangement, that finding a quick solution for the growing number of court proceedings against banks challenging the legality of processing and housing insurance fees on loans strengthened the financial sector and improved the business climate.
However, last weekend, a proposal for authentic interpretations of three laws appeared, which were planned to change the case law in favor of banks, but were withdrawn from the parliamentary procedure. According to that explanation, the proposal of an authentic interpretation of Article 1066 of the Law on Obligations would mean everything contrary to what the Supreme Court determined in its position, that is, it would enable banks to charge loan processing without the obligation to inform debtors about the structure of those costs. If it was adopted, the courts would be obliged to apply it and all those who sued the banks would lose the disputes, and those who received the money legally would have to return it to the banks.
President Aleksandar Vucic stated the day before last that he asked the deputies of his party, who proposed an authentic interpretation of the three laws concerning disputes between citizens and banks, to give up and try to find other solutions in order to protect the poorest citizens.
He added that the adoption of that interpretation would not affect the banks the most, but the state.
Asked why he reacted in this case, and regarding the allegations in the public that the banking lobby advocated an authentic interpretation, which would benefit them, Vucic answered for TV Happy that those who proposed it did not intend to protect banks, but the state from arbitrariness of lawyers.
– You don’t need to be particularly smart and be on the side of the people and say that banks are the ones that take more profits than they should, but I was guided by something else. I took a good look, I understand the intention of those who proposed that, not to protect the banks, but the state from the arbitrariness of lawyers, who went on strike for themselves, and not for the people – said Vucic, Politika reports.
