Legal issue: What is the relation between paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1107 of Civil Code, that is, between the requirement to compensate all profits received as a result of unjust enrichment, and the requirement to pay interest under Article 395, Civil Code for the use of monies belonging to another person?

Ratio decidendi: Inferior courts made a mistake, believing that in case of unjust enrichment both profits derived and interest incurred should be paid. The interest indicated in paragraph 2 must be set off against profits indicated in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 established a simplified procedure for proving the minimal amount of income in case of pecuniary enrichment, but at the same time it does not preclude the recovery of profits in a greater amount in accordance with rules of paragraph 1, provided that the existence of such excessive profits has been proved. The opposite interpretation, which limits the amount of recoverable income solely by paragraph 2, that is, by an interest alone, would make it profitable to use property belonging to others and would create an incentive for the defendant to continue intentionally using it and returning it to the owner as late as possible.

Besides, profit consists of net revenue, that is, gross revenue minus expenses. Therefore, in case the bank is a defendant in a case, it would be wrong to determine its income as corresponding to a credit interest rate: it is also necessary to take into account the expenses of the bank relative to issuing credits.