This article was automatically translated from HIBAPRESS, the Arabic version:
This article was automatically translated from HIBAPRESS, the Arabic version:
Heba Press – Muhammad Zariyouh
The Nador Court of First Instance has issued a judgment requiring a bank to return money deposited to an elderly customer, while imposing a threatening fine of 200 dirhams for each day of delay in execution.
The decision follows an urgent lawsuit brought by a customer suffering from Parkinson’s disease and loss of mobility, after the bank refused to release his pension due to a signature not matching the form kept by the banking institution.
The case dates back to the fact that the complainant made an urgent request to receive his money in the presence of the enforcement officer, after finding himself unable to meet his daily needs due to the bank’s refusal to carry out the procedure.
The customer attached to his complaint a medical certificate, an inspection report and a copy of a bank check as proof of his right. The bank, for its part, justified its position by wanting to take additional precautions to protect itself against fraud due to the state of health of the complainant, by offering alternative means such as a bank card and an official power of attorney, but the client insisted on withdrawing his pension. in cash.
Regarding the merits of the decision, the judge stressed that the urgent role of the judiciary is to protect individuals from serious financial harm, noting that the bank did not deny the identity of the client as the holder of the bank account.
The judge ruled that Parkinson’s disease does not constitute a convincing reason to deprive the plaintiff of his right to his money, especially since the account is intended for the transfer of his retirement pension, which represents his main source of income .
The judge explained that the bank’s refusal to release the plaintiff’s funds was considered arbitrary, emphasizing the importance of using alternative means to verify identity if it is not possible to sign.
This decision represents an example of the role of the judiciary in protecting the financial rights of vulnerable groups and respecting their dignity in their relationships with institutions.
