The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union has endorsed Wednesday that a “limited in time” retroactivity in the calculation of the amounts that banks must return to those affected by the provisions soil in Spain is applied. This is a setback for users of mortgages in their fight against such clauses, and a cause for celebration for the Bank, and will not be required to return all the money claimed by “floor clauses” before the implementation of the sentence 3 years ago prevented its use as claimed consumer associations.
On May 9, 2013, the Supreme Court recognized the unfairness of these clauses because, although they are essentially “lawful” were not entirely “comprehensible” for consumers, or explain the conditions of a “transparent” manner.
Read more
” the ground clauses are very common conditions that the bank introduces some mortgage loans that fall down what interest rates, the debtor has a minimum interest rate cap -of referenced or you will pay in any case. sometimes, but not always, that contract also includes an ‘clause ceiling’ that sets a maximum limit, which often seems consideration that gives the bank in exchange for the debtor to accept the clause floor, “according to the newspaper El Pais in an article published after that resolution 2009, which originated in a request from the Association of Users of Banking Services (Ausbanc), stating that the contested provisions, if examined “in isolation” self fulfill “the legal requirements for incorporation into contracts,” but the global information offered entities was inadequate and insufficient.
However, the decision of the Supreme Court, although condemning entities to remove those clauses of contracts and cease its use, rejected however the retroactivity of the judgment by the risk of that “serious disorders significance in the economic public order” were rendered. The court sought to protect Spanish banks the impact of such returns, a few months after billionaire European bailout and the financial sector in a sea of doubt.
Read more
therefore, associations users mortgage resorted to the European Union for amparase his hope that the Supreme Court ruling should apply retroactively, forcing the Bank to return the money collected through these clauses from the time of signing the mortgage contract . The Advocate General’s Opinion released today indicate that the Bank could get rid of paying the money collected on that concept before the date of the judgment, that sum could amount to between 3,000 and 8,000 million euros.
The news has impacted immediately on the busrsátil market. The affected banks are beginning to record rises a few percentage points in the IBEX 35
It should be clarified that the findings of lawyer did not They are binding, but they are usually a reliable indicator of content that will be the final judgment. In more than 80% of cases often coincide.
“We oppose that banks always win”
On RT’ve talked to Luis Chamorro, coordinator of the Platform of People Affected by the Mortgage, which has expressed to us his “great astonishment” and admitted that “we did not expect this conclusion.” Chamarro believes that the decision of the European Court is due to a deliberate attempt to protect a Spanish bank that is in a “state of emergency” and considered a reflection of the poor economy. However, do not believe that this is the biggest problem banks may face: “The real problem is the likely illegality of foreclosure proceedings, the reversibility are trying to start.”
As for the affected families, Chamorro said that “short-term frustration of the families will be great, and now it’s time to join forces: that different platforms and associations get together to make it clear we oppose the bank always wins. ” Their perception of injustice that governs this whole process is easy to understand: “The financial system may become unstable if the Bank was forced to return all the money he has stolen through these clauses, but the economic situation of families also becomes imbalanced when they subjected to conditions that require them to unfairly pay extremely high amounts of money. “
David Romero
No comments:
Post a Comment