Privacy Policy

Cookie Notice

Legal

Lets work together

Križanec & Partners

Address

Contact

Sophisticated knowledge for rapidly emerging markets

All services

All posts

All experts

Legal Services

Experts

Insights

Careers

About

Areas of Practice

Banking and Finance

Consumer Law

Dispute Resolution

<h2>Right to temporarily suspend the performance of the contract</h2>Two years have passed since the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia ruled that consumer loan agreements denominated in Swiss francs (CHF) are null and void. Following this landmark decision, lower courts have since consistently and uniformly held that CHF loan agreements are invalid, ordering banks to reimburse borrowers for overpaid amounts. However, the evolution of case law has not stopped at the question of nullity alone. Significant progress has also been made in the protection of <a href="https://www.krizanecpartners.com/en/cat/consumer-law">consumers’ rights</a> during ongoing proceedings. According to the current, consistent judicial practice, a consumer who is still repaying a CHF loan at the time of filing a claim against the bank—and who has by that point already repaid more than they originally received under the loan agreement—may request that the effects of the loan agreement (and all related legal transactions) be temporarily suspended until the final conclusion of the court proceedings. In other words, upon the consumer’s request, the court may temporarily “freeze” the performance of the loan contract. In practice, this means that the consumer is no longer obliged to make further payments under a contract whose validity is being challenged in court, while the bank is prevented from enforcing repayment through execution or other coercive measures until a final judgment is issued. <h2>Regulatory interim injunction</h2>This measure constitutes a regulatory interim injunction, originally grounded in a 1997 Constitutional Court decision, which courts had historically applied cautiously and restrictively. A decisive turning point in favor of consumers came with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0287">C-287/22</a>, which clearly defined the criteria for issuing interim injunctions in consumer <a href="https://www.krizanecpartners.com/en/cat/dispute-resolution">disputes</a> such as those concerning CHF loans. The assessment of unfair contractual terms in consumer credit agreements under the Consumer Protection Act must take into account the minimum standards laid down in Council <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31993L0013">Directive 93/13/EEC</a> on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, as well as the interpretative principles developed by the CJEU. According to the judgment in case C-287/22, consumers must be ensured effective judicial protection, meaning that an interim injunction should be granted when the court finds sufficient indications of unfair contractual terms and a reasonable probability that the agreement is null or that the consumer will be entitled to restitution of instalments already paid. Only by suspending the performance of the contract can the court ensure that a final decision on the nullity of unfair terms has real, not merely formal, effect. In Slovenian law, this standard is reflected in Article 272 of the Enforcement and <a href="https://pisrs.si/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO1008">Security Act</a> (ZIZ):-           the first condition, the probability of the claim’s existence, corresponds to the assessment of whether there are indications of unfair contractual terms and thus of contract nullity;-          the second condition, the risk of irreparable harm, means that without the injunction, the consumer would continue to bear the consequences of a contract that may later be declared void, resulting in damage that cannot be fully remedied. <h2>An important milestone for consumers</h2>A fundamental shift in Slovenian case law has occurred with the recognition that the standard of irreparable harm, previously interpreted primarily through the prism of the applicant’s financial hardship, must now be understood in a loyal and EU-compliant manner, consistent with the CJEU’s reasoning. This approach shifts the focus from purely financial risk to the effectiveness of judicial protection and the substantive significance of the final decision on nullity. The previous restrictive interpretation of “irreparable harm,” traditionally applied in ordinary civil disputes, can therefore no longer be used in consumer cases. These disputes require an EU-conforming interpretation that prioritises consumer protection and the effectiveness of judicial remedies. For instance, the Ljubljana Higher Court, in its decision VSL Sklep <a href="https://sodnapraksa.si/?q=id:2015081111486075&amp;database%5bSOVS%5d=SOVS&amp;database%5bIESP%5d=IESP&amp;database%5bVDSS%5d=VDSS&amp;database%5bUPRS%5d=UPRS&amp;_submit=i%C5%A1%C4%8Di&amp;page=0&amp;id=2015081111486075">II Cp 178/2025</a> of 27 May 2025, expressly held that interpreting the standard such that an interim injunction could only be granted where financial hardship is proven would be inconsistent with an EU-compliant interpretation of the consumer’s position. This development in judicial practice represents a major milestone after years of uncertainty and inconsistency in the handling of CHF loan disputes. Consumers, who for years bore the burden of unfair contractual terms and currency fluctuations, have now gained clearer and more effective protection. The regulatory interim injunction has thus become a key instrument of consumer protection, allowing them to maintain legal and financial security throughout the proceedings until the court’s final decision. <h2>Legal assistance</h2><a href="https://www.krizanecpartners.com/en">Križanec &amp; Partners</a> Law Firm in Slovenia provides comprehensive legal representation in proceedings for declaring CHF-denominated loan agreements null and void, as well as expert preparation of motions for regulatory interim injunctions—ensuring full and effective protection of our clients’ rights and interests. For further information and legal advice regarding disputes over Swiss franc (CHF) loans, please contact our dispute resolution expert, <a href="https://www.krizanecpartners.com/en/experts/lara-amrsek">Lara Amršek</a>.

In recent months, Slovenian courts have increasingly issued regulatory interim injunctions that temporarily “freeze” the repayment of Swiss franc (CHF) loans until a final judgment is rendered. This marks an important development in judicial practice, as it provides consumers with effective legal protection already during the proceedings— relieving them from the obligation to pay instalments under a disputed contract and preventing banks from enforcing repayment through execution or other coercive measures during that period.

Regulatory Interim Injunction as a “Judicial Freeze” of CHF Loan Payments Pending Final Judgment – an Increasingly Common Judicial Practice

<h2>Succession contracts: transfer of property inter vivos</h2>By making a testament, the testator ensures that his property will be distributed among his heirs after his death in accordance with his will. However, you can distribute your property during your lifetime to your descendants or other persons whom you wish to receive your property.By concluding a succession contract, you can ensure that your property is distributed in accordance with your wishes, while at the same time avoiding any <a href="https://www.krizanecpartners.com/en/cat/dispute-resolution">disputes</a> that may arise in the succession proceedings between your heirs in relation to your property.  However, you will have to conclude each of the succession contracts in a notarial deed.Contract for the delivery and distribution of property (&quot;delivery contract&quot;)The conclusion of a delivery contract enables the deliverer to transfer his immovable or movable property, which he has at that moment, free of charge to one or more of his descendants immediately after the conclusion of the contract. It has the peculiarity that it will be valid only if all the descendants agree to it. So, if you have two descendants and you want to give your real estate to only one descendant by means of a delivery contract, the other descendant must agree to it. Otherwise, the contract will be void and the part of the property (in this case, the real estate) will be considered as a gift, in respect of which the other descendant who did not agree to the contract may have a claim in the succession proceedings.Contract of subsistenceIn a contract of subsistence, a person transfers ownership of immovable property to another person, who in return must provide certain benefits and services to this person or to someone else - in practice, this is most often seen as a lifetime easement of the home, and care, nursing and similar assistance in the event of sickness and old age. Unlike a contract of delivery, which can only transfer property to your descendants, you can also enter into a contract of subsistence with a third party, without needing the consent of your descendants. Moreover, it is considered a contract for remuneration because the acquirer of the property repays it with his/her benefits and services.Contract of lifetime maintenanceThis is a contract whereby the maintaining party undertakes to take care of the maintained party until the latter&#039;s death and, in return, the maintained party leaves certain property to the maintaining party after death. Like a contract of subsistence, it is considered to be a contract for remuneration. Even if they are similar in substance, there is a notable difference with a contract of subsistence. If you enter into a contract of subsistence with someone, that person will become the owner of your property upon its conclusion, whereas if you enter into a contract of lifetime maintenance, your contracting party will become the owner of the property only after your death.<h2>Legal advice and further information</h2>As each succession contract has its own peculiarities, it is advisable to consult a professional to find out which type of contract is best suited to your wishes and needs. <a href="https://www.krizanecpartners.com/en">Križanec &amp; Partners</a> Law firm in Slovenia, offers professional advice and legal representation in the conclusion of succession contracts. For further information, please contact our expert in succession law, associate <a href="https://www.krizanecpartners.com/en/experts/lara-amrsek">Lara Amršek</a>. On our website you can find out more about succession contracts and other legal solutions that can help you to distribute your property in accordance with your wishes.

Succession contracts allow property to be distributed to descendants or other persons during the lifetime of the deceased, thus avoiding disputes between heirs after the deceased's death.

Succession contracts

On 20 September 2023, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia issued a judgment and a decision in Case No II Ips 54/2023, by which, inter alia, it found that a credit agreement granted for a loan in Swiss francs (CHF) to consumers is null and void.The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia based its decision, in particular, on the conclusion that the bank had failed to fulfil its duty to provide explanations in accordance with the requirements of professional diligence. The bank should have ensured that the credit borrowers, as consumers, were made aware of the actual consequences of major currency fluctuations, whereas instead there was an uneven distribution of risks to the marked detriment of the credit borrowers, which the Supreme Court of the RS considered to be an unfair practice.Based solely on the explanations received, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia considers that the credit borrowers could not have been aware that the risk they were exposed to by entering into such a business relationship was very high. The bank must provide such information as would lead the average consumer not only to be aware in the abstract of exchange rate fluctuations and the possibility of changes in the amount of the instalments of the credit, but also to be aware in the concrete of the actual consequences of a large depreciation of the domestic currency (and of the increase in foreign interest rates) on the amount of his credit obligations for the entire period of repayment of the credit. Not only that, but the bank must also inform the consumer of the economic circumstances which could affect exchange rate fluctuations, thereby enabling him to understand in concrete terms the potentially serious consequences which the conclusion of a foreign currency loan could have on his financial situation. It is not enough for the consumer to be aware, on the basis of the bank&#039;s explanations, of the possibility of changes in the exchange rate, but it is also necessary to make it clear to him that the exchange rate, particularly in long-term contractual relationships lasting several decades, can change significantly and that this can have non-negligible negative economic effects - something which the bank has failed to do.The insufficient explanatory duty violates the principle of good faith and fair dealing and creates inequality between the contracting parties, which led the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia to consider the disputed contractual terms of the credit agreement unfair and, in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, void. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia further held that the entire credit agreement was null and void on the ground that the disputed contractual terms constituted a central element of the contract.This is one of the decisions that is essential to overturn the previous case law, which, despite the efforts of lawyers, was extremely favourable to banks and to steer the case law of our courts in favour of the credit borrowers who, on the basis of the banks&#039; assurances (and insufficient explanations), opted for seemingly attractive Swiss francs (CHF) loans. The latter had extremely negative financial consequences due to the huge increases in credit instalments, as consumers disproportionately overpaid or continue to overpay for the loans.With the above mentioned decision, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia has opened the way for other consumers to request the annulment of credit agreements for Swiss francs (CHF) loans and, under certain conditions, the repayment of overpaid credit and the termination of the lien securing their claims.Our lawyers are already advising affected consumers on how to find a comprehensive solution and how to approach the case as efficiently as possible.

On 20 September 2023, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia issued a judgment and a decision declaring that a credit agreement granted for a loan in Swiss francs (CHF) to consumers is null and void. With the above decision, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia has opened the way for other consumers to request a declaration of nullity of credit agreements for Swiss francs (CHF) loans and, under certain conditions, the repayment of overpayments and the termination of the lien securing their claims.

Change in case-law in favour of consumers - recipients of credit in Swiss francs (CHF)

T: +386 59 097 400

Fax: +386 59 097 410

info@krizanecpartners.com

Facebook

LinkedIn

Arbitration

Media

Lara advises in Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, with a focus on Banking and Finance, and Media sectors.Lara is a post-graduate of the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law.Lara is fluent in Slovene and English.

LaraAmršek