money
EU ruling could make it easier for bank fraud victims to get refunds
Banks cannot refuse an immediate refund simply because they believe a customer was careless
Published
Banks must refund victims of unauthorised payments before trying to prove that they were grossly negligent, a recent EU ruling clarifies.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued the decision on October 15, ruling that banks cannot refuse an immediate refund simply because they believe the customer’s carelessness led to the fraud.
The decision followed a case concerning a woman in Poland who was selling a product online. Someone posing as a buyer sent her a link to a fake version of her bank’s website.
She entered her banking details and was tricked into providing an SMS confirmation code, allowing the fraudster to transfer around €700 from her account without her permission.
After she reported the incident to her bank, it refused to reimburse her, arguing that she had been grossly negligent in protecting her banking details.
The court ruled that banks must refund unauthorised payments immediately, and no later than the end of the first working day after becoming aware of them, provided the customer reports the transaction without undue delay.
If a bank believes the customer was grossly negligent, it can subsequently seek to recover the money, but it must prove that the customer was grossly negligent.
What does this mean for people in France?
French law already requires banks to refund unauthorised payments immediately, and no later than the end of the first working day after becoming aware of the transaction, under Article L133-18 of the Monetary and Financial Code.
The law allows an exception where a bank has good reason to suspect fraud by the customer and communicates its reasons in writing to the Banque de France.
The CJEU’s October 15 ruling clarifies how these rules should be interpreted.
The decision could help people whose banks have rejected reimbursement claims following phishing attacks or other forms of banking fraud.
However, it does not guarantee compensation in every case. The ruling specifically concerns unauthorised payments, meaning different considerations may apply when a customer personally makes a transfer after being deceived.
Can victims of earlier fraud benefit?
The judgment interprets existing EU law rather than introducing a new reimbursement system. It does not limit its interpretation to cases involving transactions made after October 15.
This means it may also be relevant to earlier claims that remain in dispute.
However, it does not automatically reopen cases that have been definitively settled, so individual circumstances and legal time limits may matter.
People who have been refused reimbursement could challenge their bank’s decision by referring to the CJEU judgment in Case C-70/25, Tukowiecka.
