On November 7th, 2008, the first court of district 1, Bucharest allowed the request filed by the claimant, and obliged the defendant to provide to the claimant all the documents that contain data and information concerning the accounts opened by the defendant, between 13 June 2008 and 7 November 2008.
On April 3rd, 2009, the Tribunal of Bucharest, Civil section, as an appeal court allowed the appeal declared by the defendant, cancelled the sentence of the first court and determined that the competent court to solve the dispute as a fist court is the Bucharest Tribunal, and not the first court of district 1.
On October 20th, 2009, the Bucharest Tribunal, commercial section allowed the request of the claimant and obliged the defendant to provide to the claimant all the documents that contain data and information concerning the accounts opened by the defendant, between 13 June 2008 and 7 November 2008.
The first court considered that because the defendant did not presented to the claimant all the documents from the bank files referring to the operations performed in the claimant accounts, between the parties was created a conflict, mitigated by a financial offer of recalculation of the discounted default interests, that was included in the agreement of the January 25th, 2008.
On March 18th, 2010, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, commercial section, rejected as unfounded the appeal filed by the defendant against the first court decision and allowed the appeal filed by the claimant, changed partly the appealed sentence, in order to oblige the defendant to pay to the claimant 8,685.57 RON judicial costs.
The appeal court considered that the appeal of the defendant is not grounded.
The defendant, legal person, declared second appeal by which it claimed, inter alia, the following:
- The appeal court infringed the attributions of the legislative body, according to the provisions of the O.G. no. 21/1992, regarding the protection of the consumers, in the sense that the attribution to ascertain the existence of the illicit deeds in this field rests with the relevant national authority and not with the court of law.
- The defendant claims that by means of the act of 25th January 2008, it did not waive her right to obtain information from the bank, but, rather, she waived the right to any claim brought against the bank before such date.