The Supreme Court has postponed to June 1 the deliberation and vote of the class action lawsuit filed by Adicae on the reimbursement of the amounts unduly charged by the banks as floor clauses, the high court reported this Thursday.
In a statement, the Supreme indicates that it has been agreed to suspend the deliberation and that it be brought to the attention of the plenary session of the room on June 1 at 10:30 in the morning, reports Efe.
The purpose of Adicae’s lawsuit was to recover the amounts unduly collected from the signing of the contract and not only since they were declared null, and the Supreme Court must rule on this on June 1, in a ruling for which Judge Pedro will be the rapporteur. Jose Vela Torres.
The high court set May 9, 2013 as the deadline to claim the amounts unduly collected, without retroactive effects and regardless of the date on which the mortgage was signed.
However, other judicial bodies have issued rulings in favor of the return being executed from the date of signing the contract, as Adicae defends.
Among them, the commercial court No. 11 of Madrid, in a ruling that was ratified by the Provincial Court, which on April 19 decided that all the amounts collected in application of these abusive mortgage “floors” must be returned, and not only the applied since 2013, which is what the Supreme set.
The ruling of the Court of Madrid allowed one affected by floor clauses declared null to recover the excess paid since the signing of the mortgage, in 2007, despite having a final judgment and having recovered as of May 2013.
But the Court of Madrid put the effective judicial protection of those affected by the floor clause before res judicata, highlighting that the time limitation imposed by the Supreme is equivalent to depriving consumers who signed a mortgage before that date “of the right to obtain full restitution of the amounts that have been unduly paid to the bank”.
This only allows “limited protection” to be guaranteed to those mortgaged before that date, so that such protection is “incomplete and insufficient and does not constitute an adequate and effective means for the use of said clause to cease”, the sentence continues.
Said return, indicated the Court of Madrid, should be made to all consumers who in Spain had suffered the application of that abusive clause.
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 refunded the amounts unduly received by the bank since the Justice declares the nullity, but not before.
And a week ago, in response to a preliminary ruling raised by the Zaragoza Provincial Court, it decided that consumers can request compensation in court for the abusive clauses of a mortgage even when it has already been foreclosed and the property has been sold, but only in a later and different legal proceeding.
Adicae highlights “the enormous relevance of a sentence called to put an end to a judicial morass and the massive abuse of banking on millions of consumers.”
The consumer association warns that despite the fact that the Justice has reiterated in hundreds of thousands of resolutions the abusiveness of the floor clauses, and that the Real Estate Credit Law itself prohibited them in 2019, the condemned entities have presented resources to each one of the sentences obtained.
This, with the aim of delaying the essential global solution that requires an abuse of this scope and characteristics, while some entities have even continued to apply “floors” to consumers.
Another of the consumer associations specializing in banking abuses, Asufin, recalls that the Supreme Court “has been wrong many times on the issue of floor clauses, and has had to be corrected by Europe.”
It is worrying, indicates the association chaired by Patricia Suárez, that “at this point, and after a serious financial crisis, they are not clear about it.”
