Lost our case against banco popular

Maria,

Does this act as a classic example of Banks demonstrating callous disregard for Supreme Court rulings, and if so how can judges allow this to occur?

Are judges not obliged to take account of SC rulings when making their rulings with regard to imposition of appeal legal fees?

How can judges be seen to disregard a SC decision on the backdating of interests that has presumably taken years to achieve?

Does this not leave the door open for Banks to abuse this situation?

An explicit declaration of the Supreme Court on legal doctrine regarding interests backdating is necessary, in my opinion, for reducing the number of Appeals by Banks and decisions like those of Murcia Appeal Court, section one.

" An explicit declaration of the Supreme Court on legal doctrine regarding interests backdating is necessary, in my opinion ".

Agreed Maria, but....

In the absence of timely explicit SC doctrine, is it possible for legal arguments to be submitted within first instance and ongoing appeals, to emphasise and draw the link between Banks disrespecting SC clarification to date and Banks proliferation of challenges in this regard (with examples), to draw the judges attention to the fact that this needs to be assessed if this might be deemed an act of bad faith?

IMHO, to have to wait for an unacceptable time to gain explicit SC doctrine and be exposed to proliferation of challenges that disrespect SC rulings in the interim periods, appears as an abuse in itself,

Especially when you consider that inconsistent rulings can lead to bad case law which then in themselves results in a proliferation of subsequent appeals and SC clarification(s).

Perhaps in the lengthy interim periods, this needs urgent re-appraisal of how legal arguments are being tabled, with regard to cross referencing existing SC rulings?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this to assess if there might be some better means of protecting clients from within the lawsuits in these lengthy interim periods by creating a database of previous challenges to SC clarification (by Bank) which can be called upon to act as supportive evidence?

In the vast majority of cases, all Appeals in Spain are declaring interests from date of payment ( few exception of no consideration at all). I can send a list of these to you.

Its the cases from courts and regions which have led to bad case law in contradiction with Ley57/68 without recognising and respecting SC clarification of interests backdated to date of deposit  from which a proliferation of appeals then become necessary,  that continues to compromise claimants (that also compromises award of costs), or the Banks who are consistently being obstructive in this legal process that need to be identified is it not Maria?

So, you want me to identify what Appeal Courts are wrongly deciding against backdating of interests at present?

Maria,

I am sure that transparency at all court levels with regard to wrong decisions on back dating of interest (including the Banks who appear to appeal as "standard practice" without due regard to adherence of SC clarification or recognition of claimants inalienable rights) should help in the longer term to achieve greater consistency of rulings and make Banks fully accountable for their negligences from the outset.

Plus.... The point I was making re appeal costs being born by the Bank is that if appeal costs were seen to be consistently awarded under this "current climate of proliferation of appeals" without due regard to SC clarification, and supported by swift and timely explicit SC doctrine and non admittance thereafter, the more likely it is that Banks will be deterred from this awful practice of appealing as standard practice, which compromises both the system of justice and claimants alike.. In other words full accountability will have been achieved.

I have to observe Maria that regulatory and consistent practices in place to gain accountability have massive benefits for all consumers if only Spain would recognise it with regard to Banks!!