Dragan Senić, representing clients of former Hypo Bank, now Addiko Bank, has asked Montenegro’s Supreme Court to set a legal position on loans indexed to Swiss francs, arguing borrowers were not adequately warned about exchange-rate risks. His submission to Supreme Court President Valentina Pavličić asks the court to examine the fairness and legality of the loan terms and what banks had to disclose before contracts were signed.
The request focuses on loans paid out in euros but linked to the Swiss franc. Senić says many borrowers did not receive enough information about the possible consequences of a change in the franc’s exchange rate. He argues the court should assess whether banks explained those economic consequences and risks in a transparent and understandable way before concluding contracts.
Senić described the currency risk as “invented”, saying clients received euros while banks recorded their debt in Swiss francs. He also said the franc “never came to Montenegro” and that borrowers were virtually indebted in a speculative currency to generate extra profit. Those statements are his characterisation of how the loans operated.
Thirteen judgments and several directives and decisions were delivered to the Supreme Court, according to Senić. He cited the European Union’s Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Court of Justice of the European Union rulings in Dunai (C-118/17) and Dziubak (C-260/18). His submission also referred to the court’s ruling in MJ (C-705/21), as well as decisions in Kuszycka (C-767/24) and Adazik (C-510/25) in 2025 and 2026.
In Senić’s interpretation of that case law, a currency clause may be unfair if a bank did not clearly and fully explain the economic effects and risks of exchange-rate movements before the customer signed. He says the European court’s decisions allow unfair currency clauses to be declared null and consumers to seek full restitution and compensation.
He further argues that a contract may be void in its entirety if it cannot continue without the disputed term. In his account of the European court’s approach, national courts should not rewrite unfair clauses merely to keep an agreement in force, unless cancelling the whole contract would be particularly harmful to the consumer.
Regional court decisions also feature in the request. Senić cited rulings by the supreme courts of Poland, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, including a legal position adopted by Serbia’s Supreme Court in April 2024 on Swiss franc currency clauses. He says Montenegro’s Supreme Court should align its position with European court practice and decisions in the region.
The submission also refers to a decision by Montenegro’s Constitutional Court, U-III No. 203/21, dated 3 December 2025. Senić said it mentioned the European court’s rulings in Dunai and Dziubak. Separately, the Constitutional Court considered challenges to provisions of Montenegro’s Swiss franc loan conversion law on 24 July 2018; the law was adopted by parliament as a state intervention to ease the loans’ financial impact on citizens.
An arbitration tribunal rejected a claim against Montenegro in 2021 in a dispute over the statutory conversion of Swiss franc loans. Senić’s request asks the Supreme Court to provide legal guidance on the disputed loan terms. He said clients would turn to European legal institutions if they could not obtain justice in Montenegro, and asked whether domestic courts would remain “protectors of this banking speculation, fraud and plunder of citizens”.
