According to the interpretation he proposes, banks should not be allowed to refuse an immediate refund to customers who have been victims of fraud by initially claiming that the user acted with gross negligence.
The case originates from Poland, where a bank customer fell victim to a phishing scam. An individual posing as a buyer on an online auction platform sent her a link designed to imitate her bank’s official website. Believing the page to be legitimate, the customer entered her login credentials. Those credentials were subsequently used to execute a payment from her bank account without her authorization.
Despite notifying the bank immediately after discovering the fraud, the financial institution refused to refund the amount of the transaction. The bank argued that the customer had shown gross negligence by disclosing her banking details. The dispute eventually reached the courts, prompting the national court to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify how the EU’s Payment Services Directive should be interpreted in such cases.
In his legal opinion, the Advocate General emphasized that EU legislation requires banks to reimburse customers immediately for unauthorized transactions. The only exception applies when the bank has reasonable grounds to suspect that the customer acted fraudulently. In such circumstances, the bank must formally notify the competent authorities in writing.
However, the obligation to issue an immediate refund does not necessarily mean the case is permanently resolved in the customer’s favor. If the bank later proves that the customer intentionally, or through gross negligence, violated basic security obligations—such as revealing personal banking codes—it may seek to recover the refunded amount. In that scenario, the bank would have to take legal action against the customer in order to reclaim the money.
The approach outlined in the opinion is widely seen as strengthening the protection of users of banking services across the European Union. In practice, it shifts the burden of proof onto financial institutions and ensures that depositors are not left without access to their funds while an investigation into fraud is ongoing.
At a time when cases of online financial fraud are increasing across Europe, the interpretation could have broad implications for consumers throughout the EU. If the Court ultimately adopts the Advocate General’s position, banks would face stronger obligations to compensate customers promptly for losses caused by unauthorized transactions and would have less scope to reject reimbursement claims without thoroughly investigating the circumstances surrounding the fraud.
