Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 8:50:07 GMT
It is legitimate to charge fees for opening credit and issuing a booklet. As the express provision in the contract is sufficient for this to happen, only with the effective demonstration of an exaggerated advantage by the financial agent can the charges be considered illegal and abusive. The understanding comes from the th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice and took place during the Special Appeal trial of ABN AMRO Bank.
The financial institution questioned the decision of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, which considered the charging of the aforementioned fees to be illegal. But, as Minister Luis Felipe Salomão, rapporteur of the appeal, recalled, the BTC Number Data charge is not prohibited by the National Monetary Council and is in the nature of remuneration for the service provided by the financial institution to the consumer. Since it was not demonstrated that the bank obtained an exaggerated advantage, the appeal was partially granted to recognize the legitimacy of charging the two fees.
In the same appeal, ABN AMRO Bank challenged the thesis that the capitalization of interest would be illegal, as it was not expressly provided for in the contract. According to the lawyers, it was identified by the consumer when informed about the monthly and annual interest, as shown in the telephone service transcript.
For Minister Luis Felipe Salomão, article of the Consumer Protection Code is applicable to the case. “If the aforementioned article prohibits instruments written in such a way as to make understanding difficult, with much more reason it must prohibit the mere information of interest rates via teleservice and, even more so, that the consumer must infer from them the capitalization agreement”, understood the reporter. With information from the STJ Communications Office.
The financial institution questioned the decision of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, which considered the charging of the aforementioned fees to be illegal. But, as Minister Luis Felipe Salomão, rapporteur of the appeal, recalled, the BTC Number Data charge is not prohibited by the National Monetary Council and is in the nature of remuneration for the service provided by the financial institution to the consumer. Since it was not demonstrated that the bank obtained an exaggerated advantage, the appeal was partially granted to recognize the legitimacy of charging the two fees.
In the same appeal, ABN AMRO Bank challenged the thesis that the capitalization of interest would be illegal, as it was not expressly provided for in the contract. According to the lawyers, it was identified by the consumer when informed about the monthly and annual interest, as shown in the telephone service transcript.
For Minister Luis Felipe Salomão, article of the Consumer Protection Code is applicable to the case. “If the aforementioned article prohibits instruments written in such a way as to make understanding difficult, with much more reason it must prohibit the mere information of interest rates via teleservice and, even more so, that the consumer must infer from them the capitalization agreement”, understood the reporter. With information from the STJ Communications Office.