The sentence will put an end to a macro-demand promoted by Adicae in which the bank faces returns of 190 million if it loses
There was no white smoke about a long-awaited ruling by thousands of consumers and about which there is no possible recourse. The Supreme Court informed yesterday of the decision of the magistrates to suspend the deliberation on the macro-demand filed by the Association of Users of Banking, Savings Banks and Insurance (Adicae) and the Chamber raised the deliberation to the Plenary of the Supreme for next June 1, at 10:30 a.m.
In the Region, according to calculations by the association, there are 60,000 affected by floor clauses who will have to wait another week to find out if the banks will finally return the amounts allegedly paid unduly. This is a collective lawsuit filed by Adicae against 101 Spanish banks and savings banks that could return around 170 or 190 million euros, according to the plaintiff’s calculations. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected after the first victory that the association and consumers obtained in the first instance in the Commercial Court number 11 of Madrid in 2016 and that was later ratified in the Provincial Court of Madrid in 2018. In said ruling, the Court clarified that all the amounts collected in application of these “abusive” mortgage lands should be returned, and not only those applied since 2013. Likewise, it resolved that said return should be made to all consumers who in Spain had suffered the application of that abusive clause .
From the association they explain that despite the fact that the courts have reiterated in hundreds of resolutions the abusiveness of the floor clauses, since the Real Estate Credit Law itself prohibited them in 2019, the condemned entities have presented appeals to each of the sentences obtained by Adicae in this class action lawsuit.
The association obtained a victory in a Madrid court in 2016 and was ratified in the Provincial Court in 2018
“Their intention is to delay the definitive solution that requires an abuse of this scope and characteristics, while some entities have even continued to apply the floors to consumers,” explains Manuel Funes, coordinator of Adicae in the Region.
For its part, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established in a first ruling that the mortgage clauses considered abusive must be declared null, with which the consumer has the right to be reimbursed the amounts received unduly by the bank from which the nullity is declared, but not before.
With this panorama, finally, it will be the Supreme Court that resolves the so-called Adicae macro-demand “in a sentence of enormous relevance as a collective action in which the entities were sentenced to return what was unduly charged to all affected consumers,” they express from the Asociation.
There will be no automatic subscription
From Adicae in Murcia highlights “the enormous relevance of a sentence called to put an end to judicial passivity and the massive abuse of banking on thousands of consumers.” When the Supreme announces its decision within a week, the association will organize the judicial execution of the same, “since the banks will not proceed to the automatic payment of the amounts that correspond to all the affected consumers.” For this, and once the text of the sentence has been analyzed, when it is known “we will give the corresponding indications”, they inform.
However, they clarify, it will be a simple process that will consist of proving that each one’s mortgage deed had the floor clause and specifying the amounts that the bank must return, also including legal interest. “Although the sentence affects all consumers with a floor clause, those who are in the macro-demand have already proven their status as beneficiaries of the sentence,” they conclude.
Technical help to scrutinize mortgage loans
From Adicae they warn that some 15,000 consumers in the Region do not know that they are affected by the floor clauses. For this reason, they announce that open informative assemblies will be scheduled for citizens at the association’s headquarters. “The intention is to inform consumers whether or not they are affected, and if so, indicate the steps to follow to claim and recover the amounts unduly paid,” says Matías Martín, Consumer Technician at Adicae Region. From the association they point out that if necessary the consumer will be helped to check their mortgage loan. “Surely in most mortgages the floor clause is not mentioned as such. Within the ‘Financial conditions’ section –or similar–, this clause is usually disguised under complex expressions, such as ‘limitation to the variability of the interest rate’, which is how it is usually collected. For this reason, we advise reviewing the mortgage contract. In any case, they warn, if from 2009 or later dates the monthly quota did not drop, it is very likely that it is because of a floor clause, “because the Euribor has been constantly falling for years,” they warn from Adicae.
#Supreme #Court #postpones #ruling #floor #clauses #affects #customers