Newsletter-21

256 NEWSLETTER 2016 obligation. The bank’s signature under this undertaking shall be binding.”(Decision numbered 2013/11-2426 E. 2015/1540 K. and dated 10.6.2015) Although the general trend in the consequences of the banks’ spe- cial position is the aggravation of their liabilities, the contrary may be the case, as well 5 . On the other hand, the aggravation of liabilities may not always be a negative for the banks. For example, their liability as to the protection of the secrets of their clients results in trust for such safekeeping, making the clients more prone to easily share informa- tion with their trusted banks. On the other hand, under certain instances, expecting the banks to comply with an especially heightened level of diligence may not be the case. In particular, when the bank informs its client of its routine internal operations and systems, this shall be binding on the parties, and the client may not expect a higher level of diligence than what is agreed to in the agreement. The Court decided in one of its unan- nounced decisions that the client shall not expect the bank to perform a transaction after the hour duly announced to be latest time in a given day in which to perform such transactions; therefore, the client was held liable for the penalty of the delayed transaction 6 . In a similar fash- ion, the banks’ trust in their long-term clients may also be a reason for a decrease in its liability 7 . Conclusion The banks operate under state supervision and control and in compliance with strict principles. This makes them trustworthy insti- tutions by creating a special trust in the general public’s eye towards them being reliable and diligent. Consequently, they must act with ob- jective diligence, as it is also consistent with the Court of Cassation’s approach. Most importantly, they may not waive liability for their minor faults as their activities require permission from the Agency and special expertise. However, the clients may not rely on the banks’ aggravated liability, provided that the bank duly notifies its internal rules regarding certain transactions. 5 Battal , p. 133. 6 Please see. 11th Civil Chamber Decision numbered 5761/5740 and dated 17.9.1996 . 7 Battal , 250.