Banking: “Handling charges” may be illegal also in Latvia.

The German Supreme Court has ruled that the banks have no right to demand handling charges for preparing a contract with a consumer. The Court was of the opinion that its judgement is in line with the EU law, which is the basis also for Latvian consumer protection legislation.

The wording of the Latvian legislation favours consumers even more than in Germany. Therefore, it seems very likely that a Latvian court could also support the reasoning of the German Court reaching the same conclusion. With the profound argumentation as to why handling charges are illegal, the German Court also provides valuable guidelines to the banks to be able to receive similar payments from the consumers in the future.

For more information in Latvian, please see our INSIDER.

by Vairis Dmitrijevs, Head of M&A, Latvia

Related Lawyers

Gints Vilgerts

Partner, M&A

+371 29 107 768


Jūlija Jerņeva


+371 29 131 597


Related Experience

Representing a Latvian top 15 company in an ongoing collective dispute with several trade unions. The dispute concerns the interpretation of the rules that determine the amount of compensation that employees may claim in case of business trips or work travel trips.

Representing the client before the State Employment Inspectorate regarding alleged discrimination of employees on the grounds of family status. The case shall clarify, whether employees must issue health insurance to employees, who are on parental leave.

Successfully defending owner of an airport hangar against claim brought by construction company regarding the owner’s refusal to pay for the defective construction works. On 14 January 2019 the district court adopted a judgement in favour of the client, which became effective as of 5 February 2019.

Representing an aviation company in an ongoing litigation regarding the repayment of investments. The company who received the funds later transferred its’ business in several coordinated transactions to a related company, and thereafter became insolvent. The client brought a claim against the recipient of the borrower’s business pursuant to Article 20 of Commercial Law.