The CJEU on interest in Swiss franc loan cases – the importance of a precise demand for payment
On 11 June 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union published a judgment[1] clarifying the rules for claiming statutory default interest in disputes involving foreign currency-linked loans. While maintaining the existing level of consumer protection,[2] the ruling also emphasises the importance of transparency and precision when making claims against banks.
The point at which the claim for interest arises
The Court unequivocally held that statutory default interest does not accrue automatically from the moment the consumer challenges the validity of the loan agreement. Rather, interest begins to run only once the bank has been served with a formal demand for payment or other written document specifying the amount sought.
This means that the bank, as the debtor, can only be held to be in default once it has actual knowledge of the scope and amount of the claim. Consequently, this moment marks the start of the accrual of statutory interest.
The requirement to specify the amount of the claim
A key element of the ruling is the recognition that requiring the consumer to specify the exact amount sought is compatible with EU law. As the CJEU emphasised, such a requirement serves an important systemic function: it enables the bank to ascertain the amount of its potential obligation and to assess the merits of the claim.
This standard of communication between the parties is consistent with the principle of legal certainty and ensures that procedural equality of arms is maintained.
No excessive burden on the consumer
Noting that borrowers typically know the amounts they have paid and may, where appropriate, verify them by reference to their account history or by obtaining a certificate from the bank, the Court also addressed the issue of proportionality, emphasising that the obligation to indicate a specific amount does not place an excessive burden on the consumer.
Accordingly, the requirement to quantify the claim precisely is consistent with the principle of effective consumer protection and does not make it excessively difficult for consumers to exercise their rights.
Implications for the structure of the obligation relationship
The CJEU’s judgment underscores that the general principles of the law of obligations govern the relationship between the consumer and the bank, even where the loan agreement has been declared invalid. One such principle is the requirement for the creditor to specify the performance sought. Only once this has been done will the debtor be obliged to perform to the specified extent.
In this regard, the judgment reinforces the significance of established civil law concepts, such as the maturity of an obligation and the state of default, in the context of Swiss franc loan disputes.
Impact on litigation practice
The ruling has considerable implications for the pre-trial stage and the manner in which claims are formulated, in particular because it:
- Clearly identifies the point from which interest may begin to accrue
- Underscores the importance of a carefully drafted demand for payment
- Limits the scope for interest to accrue for any period during which the bank was unaware of the amount sought
Financial institutions are therefore likely to routinely raise the defence that the claim is not yet due where the demand for payment was made in general terms or did not contain a precise calculation.
Context of the Advocate General’s opinion
In the parallel proceedings in Case C‑831/24, the Advocate General’s position is particularly relevant, as he stresses the importance of consumers taking a more active role in substantiating their claims in court proceedings.
The Advocate General emphasised that it is for the consumer to identify the specific infringements of the obligation to provide information that they perceive in the agreement and to set out the legal consequences they draw from them. This approach is consistent with the holding of the judgment in Case C-903/24, namely that the proper specification of a claim is a condition for the effective enforcement of obligations.
The ruling thus reinforces the importance of transparency and precision in the relations between the parties and promotes a more balanced approach to pursuing claims, one that effectively protects both consumers’ interests and banks’ right to defend their position.
Have questions? Contact us
[1] In Case C‑903/24 (Zmarka)
[2] As established by Directive 93/13/EEC
