Banks Prohibited from Implementing Fresh Credit Card Fees by the Supreme Court
New and Improved Article:
In a recent twist, the Russian Supreme Court has weighed in on financial institutions' practices, dealing a blow to Alfa Bank. Contrary to the bank's claims, it lacks the authority to unilaterally alter contract terms and impose new commission sizes or fees on credit agreements, the court ruled.
The decision was spurred by a St. Petersburg resident's complaint. He landed a credit card from Alfa Bank in 2022, which offered fee-free withdrawals up to 50,000 rubles per month. A month later, the bank slapped a 5.9% commission and an additional 900 rubles on his transactions, citing the contract's stipulation that it could adjust tariffs at will.
Despite initial court decisions siding with Alfa Bank, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC RF) nullified the commission imposition and sent the case for retrial. This decision brings relief to consumers who fear unannounced and arbitrary fee increases.
Additionally, the SC RF found a fraudulently obtained credit agreement null and void. The scammers managed to hack a client's Alfa Bank mobile app account, transferring the phone number to their own and disabling the remote access notification function. They then proceeded to use the victim's electronic signature to secure a 265,500-ruble loan. A criminal case has been opened, and the suspect is still at large.
Initially, lower courts refused to consider the deception and attributed negligence to the client. However, the SC RF overturned these decisions, highlighting the importance of upholding consumer rights in such cases.
While the Supreme Court did not directly address fee changes in consumer credit agreements, recent developments indicate a strengthening of consumer protections. A 2025 appellate court ruling recognized consumers' right to privacy, allowing them to sue banks for unsolicited marketing communications following consent revocation[1]. This underscores judicial support for consumer protections against unilateral bank actions.
Moreover, mergers of Russian banks and sanctions-related insolvency proceedings are causing regulatory updates, which could indirectly impact banks' operational practices but do not offer specific guidance on fee changes[2]. In the broader context, Russian civil law requires notification and justification for unilateral modifications to consumer credit terms, unless expressly permitted by the original agreement[3].
For a comprehensive understanding of fee changes in consumer credit agreements, a closer look at the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 310, 450) and specific Supreme Court rulings on consumer credit would be helpful. The current materials shed light on privacy protections and sanctions, but they do not cover the contractual term adjustments directly.
Stay informed by following our Telegram channel @expert_mag for more news on the Supreme Court, Credit, and Credit Cards.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/yanawardasow/2025/10/01/russian-appellate-court-acknowledges-consumers-constitutional-right-to-privacy/?sh=3b8922d152e5[2] https://www.rbc.ru/business/26/11/2025/5fd2a99f9a794795e591a3e0[3] https://www.legaltechnology.ru/article/2025/03/02/1838645820.html
- The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC RF) sent a case back for retrial, nullifying a commission imposed by Alfa Bank on a consumer's transactions, suggesting a strengthening of consumer protections within the banking and finance business in 2022.
- In their ruling, the SC RF also declared a fraudulently obtained credit agreement null and void, emphasizing the importance of upholding consumer rights against unilateral bank actions and negligence.
- The SC RF decision builds on a 2025 appellate court ruling that recognized consumers' right to privacy, allowing them to sue banks for unsolicited marketing communications following consent revocation.
- In order to fully comprehend fee changes in consumer credit agreements, one should refer to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 310, 450) and specific Supreme Court rulings on consumer credit.
