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

Right to temporarily suspend the performance of the contract

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 consumers’ rights 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.

Regulatory interim injunction

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 C-287/22, which clearly defined the criteria for issuing interim injunctions in consumer disputes 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 Directive 93/13/EEC 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 Security Act (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.

An important milestone for consumers

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 II Cp 178/2025 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.

Legal assistance

Križanec & Partners 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, Lara Amršek.