All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

El blog de Maria

Your daily Spanish Law reporter. Have it with a cafe con leche.

03 March 2010 @ 10:27

Thirteen standard clauses provided for various contracts between banks and savings banks and customers using its services relating to loans, savings, current account deposits, credits, debit and credit cards have been declared  null and void by the Supreme Court Decision 792/2009:

The decision affects the following clauses:

1.- Those which prevent consumers to know what fees he will be charged.
2.- Those which force the consumer to bring proceedings in courts other than those corresponding in function of their domicile or other  accorded  by law.
3.- Those which force the user to bear all expenses involving a judicial process, ie both their bills as those of the barrister and solicitor of the bank, whatever the result.
4.- Those which shift the responsibility to the consumer in case someone forges a check and cash it.
5.- Those which allow the bank or saving bank to escape responsibility for the malfunction of an ATM, although the receipt indicates that the transaction has been executed.
6.- Those which reserve to the Bank the possibility of terminating a contract of mortgage loan for any reason.
7.- Those which enable the Bank to collect  a mortgage loan if its registration is refused when the refusal is the entity´s fault. 
8.- Those which free the institution from responsibility for damage caused due to transmission failures during an online operation.
9.- Those which allows the Bank to  compensate a debt  for any account holder, but the outstanding debt is only of one of the co-holders.
10.- Those which allows the bank to be exempt from any responsibility for the economic damage suffered in the time interval between the loss or theft of the card or savings account and the reporting by the affected party. In this regard, the Supreme Court reasoned that the exclusion of liability in all cases by the bank is "disproportionate and excessive." He keeps saying that it is equally unfair to exclude the Bank from liability when there is a misuse of the personal identification number by limiting  liability to cases of force majeure or coercion. Noted that "it is well known that in certain circumstances, banks can warn misuses using the diligence that is due them in harmony with their expertise and  technical equipment."
11.- Those which leave the bank to early terminate a loan due to the borrower's assets decline.
12.- Those which prohibit the sale of a mortgaged property. 
13.- Those which free the bank or saving bank to communicate credit transfer to third parties.
Cullera, Valencia, Spain by publikaccion at

Like 0


Sandra said:
03 March 2010 @ 13:58

Can the banks appeal?

Sandra said:
03 March 2010 @ 13:59

Can the banks appeal and in the meantime carry on as usual?

Maria said:
04 March 2010 @ 07:03

The Banks could just appeal before the Constitutional Court if this would be against fundamental rights or liberties, whish does not seem to be the case.

This decission is now allegable and applicable.

helen said:
30 March 2010 @ 16:47

Can a bank force you to keep open a current account with them to facilitate the payment of a mortgage, and charge you fees for operating the account.

Maria said:
30 March 2010 @ 16:58

No, they cannot.

Only registered users can comment on this blog post. Please Sign In or Register now.


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x