Your refund linked to Floor Clause in your spanish mortgage

Post reply   Start new thread
:: New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: 1 |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
21 Dec 2016 14:59 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 8700 posts Send private message


_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
21 Dec 2016 16:38 by Keith110 Star rating in the UK and I am lead.... 685 posts Send private message

Spain's banking sector was hammered on Wednesday after the European Court of Justice ruled that lenders will need to reimburse mortgage customers who were overcharged on interest payments.

The Spanish Supreme Court had previously ruled that the refunds should only apply from May 2013, however the ECJ has now ruled that all overcharged interest should be repaid, which in most cases will be from around 2009 when the Euribor began to fall.

The Court said lenders had incorrectly applied a 'floor' (Clausula Suelo) to mortgage rates, even as inter-banking lending costs fell to a record low of nearly zero percent in the wake of policy easing from the European Central Bank. The 'floor', which was ruled illegal by Spain's highest court in 2013, essentially meant that retail customers paid higher-than-necessary rates on their mortgages, potentially amounting to billions of euros, that lenders will now need to reimburse as a result of the ECJ ruling.

"The situation of unfairness must have the effect of restoring the consumer to the situation that consumer(s) would have been in if that term had not existed," the ECJ said "Consequently, the finding that 'floor clauses' are unfair must allow the restitution of advantages wrongly obtained by the seller or supplier to the consumer's detriment."



_______________________

LEY 57/1968
CLICK HERE FOR THE BANK GUARANTEES IN SPAIN WEBSITE

       
      

fpag@btinternet.com




Like 0      
21 Dec 2016 16:40 by Keith110 Star rating in the UK and I am lead.... 685 posts Send private message

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PRESS RELEASE No. 144/16 - Luxembourg, 21 Dec 2016

CLAUSULA SUELO - MORTGAGE FLOOR CLAUSES

Spanish case-law placing a temporal limitation on the effects of the invalidity of ‘floor clauses’ included in mortgage loan contracts in Spain is incompatible with EU law

Such a limitation makes consumer protection incomplete and insufficient and is not an adequate and effective means for preventing the use of unfair terms

In Spain, many individuals have initiated judicial proceedings against financial institutions seeking a declaration that the ‘floor clauses’ inserted in mortgage loan agreements concluded with consumers are unfair and that, consequently, they are not binding on the consumers. The clauses in question provide that, even if the interest rate falls below a certain threshold (or ‘floor’) defined in the agreement, the consumer must continue to pay minimum interest equivalent to that threshold, without being able to benefit from a lower rate.

By judgment of 9 May 2013, the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) held the ‘floor clauses’ to be unfair, given that the consumers had not been informed properly about the economic and legal burden which the contract would place upon them. Nevertheless, the Tribunal Supremo decided to limit the temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of those clauses, so that they would have effect only for the future, as from the date of delivery of the abovementioned judgment.

Some of the consumers affected by the application of those clauses are asking for repayment of the sums they claim have been unduly paid to the financial institutions from the date on which their loan agreements were concluded. The matter having been brought before them, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 Granada (Commercial Court No 1, Granada, Spain) and the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Provincial High Court, Alicante, Spain) ask the Court of Justice whether the limitation of the effects of the declaration of invalidity from the date of delivery of the judgment of the Tribunal Supremo is compatible with the Directive on unfair terms, 1 given that, according to that directive, such clauses are not binding on consumers.

In today’s judgment, the Court holds that EU law precludes national case-law in accordance with which the restitutory effects connected with the invalidity of an unfair term are restricted to the amounts overpaid after the delivery of the decision holding that the term is unfair.

The court notes first that, according to the directive, unfair terms must not bind consumers as provided for under the national law of the Member States, with the obligation being on those States to provide adequate and effective means to prevent the use of unfair terms. The Court explains that the national court must purely and simply exclude the application of an unfair contract term in such a way that it is deemed never to have existed and so that it does not bind the consumer. The finding of unfairness must have the effect of restoring the consumer to the situation that consumer would have been in if that term had not existed. Consequently, the finding that ‘floor clauses’ are unfair must allow the restitution of advantages wrongly obtained by the seller or supplier to the consumer’s detriment.

According to the Court, the Tribunal Supremo was entitled to hold that its judgment was not, in the interests of legal certainty, to affect situations in which judgments with the force of res judicata had been given. EU law cannot require national courts to disapply domestic rules of procedure.

However, in the light of the fundamental requirement of a general and uniform application of EU law, it is for the Court and the Court alone to decide upon the temporal limitations to be placed on the interpretation it lays down in respect of an EU rule. In that context, the Court makes it clear that the provisions of national law must not adversely affect the consumer protection guaranteed by the directive.

As it is, the temporal limitation of the effects of the declaration of nullity in respect of ‘floor clauses’ deprives Spanish consumers who have concluded a mortgage loan contract before the date on which the judgment of the Tribunal Supremo is given of the right to obtain repayment in full of the amounts overpaid to the banks. Therefore, the effect of that temporal limitation is an incomplete and insufficient protection that cannot constitute an adequate or effective means of preventing the use of unfair terms, as required by the directive.



_______________________

LEY 57/1968
CLICK HERE FOR THE BANK GUARANTEES IN SPAIN WEBSITE

       
      

fpag@btinternet.com




Like 0      
22 Dec 2016 18:18 by ads Star rating. 2921 posts Send private message

Does this now set a precedent for EU law to better protect consumers' rights in the event that the member state law does not, Keith?

For example does this ECJ ruling act as precedent against limiting the temporal effects of backdating now act as res judicata to ensure that consumers cannot be similarly compromised with regard to Ley 57/68 and that Banks will be consistently required to backdate interest to the point of deposit according to Ley 57/68 claims?  Can this be used in any way to assist in your defence against the Banks?

 


This message was last edited by ads on 22/12/2016.



Like 0      
23 Dec 2016 08:38 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 8700 posts Send private message

mariadecastro´s avatar

Dear Ads:

Yes, IT, OF COURSE CONTRIBUTES ENORMOUSLY to the  progressing ,confirming of the change of social, legal and  judicial mentality regarding Banks abuses. That is, in our opinion, together with the joy of all those mortgage payers who were misled and abused, the precious value of this Court decision.

Congratulations to Judges on their judicial wisdom , to lawyers on their legal perspective and determination and all mortgage debtors on the beautiful granting of justice.... and money for them and their personal and family needs

Cheers!

Merry Christmas!

M



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
23 Dec 2016 09:51 by Tadd1966 Star rating in Los Montesinos. 1599 posts Send private message

Ok this sounds like a good victory for the consumer.

So what happens now?

Will the banks pay back automatically if so how and when?

Will customers have to apply and if so how?

Will we customers be inundated with calls by "ambulance chasers" like the UK?



_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”



Like 1      
23 Dec 2016 11:12 by scollins Star rating in London. 44 posts Send private message

I would expect the banks to play dead and wait for customers to push for repayment rather than contact customers with proposals. Mine wrote to me about two months ago offering a much lower interest rate subject to waiving any claim for prior interest. I didn't accept their very kind invitation but I agree that we can expect more tricks from the banks and plenty of class action ambulance chasing.....



_______________________
Scollins



Like 0      
23 Dec 2016 13:50 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 8700 posts Send private message

mariadecastro´s avatar

Government is trying to reach an agreement with main opposition party on quick refund of these amounts. Let´s hope no judicial claim, non ambulance chaserswink are needed for this

Merry Christmas



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
23 Dec 2016 14:39 by scollins Star rating in London. 44 posts Send private message

We live in hope..........Merry Christmas !



_______________________
Scollins



Like 0      
23 Dec 2016 15:05 by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 8700 posts Send private message

mariadecastro´s avatar

Good attitude

Merry Christmas!



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      

Pages: 1 |

Post reply    Start new thread


Previous Threads

Obvious question I know but any info would be helpful - 4 posts
Chimney Sweep - 1 posts
Mortgage or cash ? - 9 posts
Mortgage Brokers - 0 posts
Notarized copies of documents - 12 posts
IBI demand - 15 posts
Modifying a Spanish Reg'd US built vehicle - 6 posts
Lawyers Liability - 14 posts
Leaky roof. - 25 posts
Registering a UK catering trailer in Spain - 8 posts
dogs in winter - 6 posts
Capital Gains tax refund when selling - 19 posts
floods - 3 posts
supermarkets - 8 posts
Mobility Scooters - 2 posts
Costaluz Lawyers - 8 posts
Registering a car - 16 posts
Non EU national, resident in Spain, married to EU national, travelling to UK - 3 posts
Who said lawyer isn´t liable? - 5 posts
Supreme Court Crack Down on Timeshare Contracts - 0 posts
Replaying ball in the stree - 10 posts
Finca near Villablanca - 2 posts
Re registering a spainish car - 17 posts
Towing a boat - 5 posts
Alicante Car Hire - 7 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 10

DISCLAIMER:  All opinions posted on these message boards are the opinion solely of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eye on Spain, its servants or agents.


1 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:  
Email:
   
Compare car hire in Spain


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