¿Quien es ads?

Send ads a private message

Oh dear, this member hasn't provided any information yet.

ads's latest forum comments

18 Jun 2021 19:42:

Well done Maria.

Are the banks still contesting appeal rulings to the Supreme Court and if so have your original concerns re questionable SC rulings now been overridden?

Are the courts and administration still suffering long delays in Estepona ?



Thread: All won cases by Costaluz Lawyers so far in 2021

24 Mar 2021 17:25:

Thank you for your honest responses Maria.


According to this contribution on the rule of law by the European Commission no less


"Third, from a general economic perspective, legal certainty - one of the fundamental precepts contained within the rule of law, ensuring that people are able to organise their lives relying on the predictable legal consequences of their actions and forming reliable expectations on the basis of the law7 - is a prerequisite for economic stability. Where the integrity, stability and proper functioning of the safeguard mechanisms established at national level to secure effective protection for the rule of law falter, the economic stability and prosperity are also at risk. As the Commission notes, effective judicial systems and robust anti- corruption frameworks are essential for the economy. 

In this instance legal certainty appears to have been undermined in favour of the Banks, and in that process reliable citizens' expectations have been significantly compromised have they not?

So how can this be deemed " not under the scope of jurisdiction"? 

If legal certainty according to existing law has been proven to have been undermined by the Spanish Supreme Court in this instance, surely this is deemed part of the scope of the EU Commission's jurisdiction is it not?

Or are we now questioning the independence of the EU Commission with regard to ensuring the rule of law is adhered to in terms of ensuring legal certainty principles are fully adhered to? 

Isn't this threatening the basis upon which all citizens rely, I.e. the legal certainty that their matters with regard to property acquisition, contract law, ( whether this be single or second residencies) and monies deposited into Banks safekeeping in all good faith according to existing law in Spain are entitled to protection under the rule of law?

Are you fighting this alone Maria or are the various legal professional bodies coming together to fight for this basic principle of legal certainty within the rule of law in Spain, as one voice? Or are the Banks working on the principle that they can divide and rule the legal fraternity in Spain given this scenario?



Thread: A strong battle against Supreme Court´s recent interpretation of Law 57/68 we are in

24 Mar 2021 12:04:

Basic questions.

When monies are deposited into a Spanish Banks safe keeping into a defined developer account, what law protects those monies from “ theft” by the Bank itself, I.e. enables the return of those monies upon request, when substantiated proof of deposit has been provided together with substantiated proof of developer breach of contract? Was this not law Ley 57/68?

What laws are in place to safeguard interim monies deposited into developer accounts in the event of developer insolvency? Was this not law Ley 57/68?

What legal guarantees are in place to ensure that in the event of developer insolvency deposited monies are rightly safeguarded? Was this not law Ley 57/68?

What legal mechanisms are in place to ensure that safeguarding existing guarantee laws of this nature are adhered to? Is this not the rule of law which provides the basics upon which laws in Spain are required to be enforced and adhered to?

What message does this relay to purchasers when Spanish Banks and legal mechanisms in place to protect are “allowed” to be overridden by the highest court in the land ? 

Is the Supreme Court in this instance in breach of the rule of law?

Is the Supreme Court now acting in a protectionist manner to safeguard the Banks at the expense of purchasers?

What message does this relay to the whole of the Spanish real estate industry if protective safeguarding laws are not enforced and adhered to? Does this undermine faith in this industry as a whole?

What message does this relay to the wider aspect of adhering to the rule of law?

Does this undermine faith in the rule of law and thereby undermine faith in  the Spanish justice system?

How can any of this be in the interests of Spain as a whole when it appears to be undermining trust in the very basics of justice and Banking compliance, the basis upon which the Spanish real estate industry is so reliant?

Stay strong Maria and once again thank you for all your educative postings.

Thread: A strong battle against Supreme Court´s recent interpretation of Law 57/68 we are in

13 Dec 2020 13:56:


I have just seen the following on Spanish Property Insight https://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/2020/12/10/spanish-supreme-court-twists-interpretation-of-ecjs-ruling-on-irph-mortgage-index-in-favour-of-lenders/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-12-13 with regard to IRPH mortgage clauses, and am concerned how this will now affect claimants whose legal teams have argued that Banks have acted abusively by not providing sufficient information from the outset.

In that article it identified that the SC had stipulated in this latest ruling that "they will no longer admit more IRPH appeals"!

Does this new ruling by the Supreme Court dated November 12th 2020 therefore now mean that clients will not be allowed to appeal to the SC in future in order to gain further clarification from the SC based upon ECJ rulings?

Does this mean that the SC have effectively blocked any ability for ECJ rulings to be considered going forward in this regard?

Does this now imply that the Spanish SC takes precedence over the ECJ?

Could this be considered a form of protectionist stance in favour of the Spanish Banks on the part of the SC, without allowing the due process of law to follow its full course, which presumably requires that ECJ rulings should be considered and acted upon?

Or does it mean that these ECJ rulings should be brought into the legal arguments from the outset by law firms defending their clients rights? In other words are they suggesting that wherever ECJ rulings apply as protection for clients and have not been brought as evidence to substantiate their claims, that this would be classed as new evidence and therefore not valid?

Do the implications of this  therefore go far wider than just this specific case relating to IRPH clauses, and have implications on all outstanding cases in the Spanish justice system that rely upon protective ECJ rulings?

Does this imply that all Spanish law firms have to be fully aware and competent in ECJ law/ rulings when defending their clients and how they impact the Spanish judicial system?

P.s. apologies the title of this thread should have read as "knowledge" and not " know". 😉


This message was last edited by ads on 13/12/2020.
Thread: Query re latest Supreme Court ruling on IRPH mortgage clauses and the impact on know of ECJ rulings

30 Nov 2020 21:55:

Dear Maria,

The only aspect that Banks appear to respond to is when they are made sufficiently financially accountable for their behaviour and disrespect of law in place to protect. At present it would appear that the final financial penalty is insufficient to act as EFFECTIVE deterrent against their continuing exploitative behaviour.

In the case of Ley 57/68 claims, costs are not always fully recoverable and interest is backdated but is not continued to the point of final rulings, which acts as little disincentive to continue with their ploys and "play the system of delays" and significantly overload the courts and justice system in that process.

The problem that many appear to have been exposed to is the way that banks, in full knowledge of SC rulings that took  years to achieve, continued to proliferate appeals which undermined courts ability to “cope” under the interim growing pressure, continuing to suggest elements of doubt until such time as SC doctrine was fully established ( requiring 2 SC rulings on the exact same point of law).

So final clarification of law (SC doctrine) with regard to return of principle monies took years to achieve following major proliferation of appeals, but then to witness a repeat of this purposeful "tactic " with regard to gaining clarification of correctly backdated interest became highly questionable. And all without recognition of specialised courts to fast track and assist, as called for by Keith Rule all too many years ago! 

Likewise to witness Bank submission of cassation appeal and then at the last minute withdraw their submission ( the detail of which was highly questionable from the outset) , again in full knowledge of how this significant delay subsequently compromised the innocent claimant, let alone the impact on those who follow, without “adequate” financial additional penalty to deter such exploitative behaviour I.e. in full recognition of bad intent, just beggars belief.

The “ relative “ monies involved to make Banks accountable are but small fry (comparatively small) to the Banks, but are significant to individual innocent claimants when they are left waiting in many cases a decade and a half for justice and rightful retrieval of all their monies, including interest and costs, when deposited monies ironically were supposedly protected from the outset under INALIENABLE rights according to law.

The Bank of Spain does not appear to have acted in any responsible way to act as regulator to ensure that their Banks remained compliant with law in place to protect, nor ensure that they adhere to their so called “ mission statements”, that to the common man gives the false impression upon reading the statements that they are to be trusted and are adhering to compliant rules. 

It’s hypocrisy of the highest order, and has done untold damage to trust  within the Spanish real estate industry. 

But the saddest aspect of all is that Banks have been allowed to undermine trust in the justice system itself.

The whole scenario needs review from a much higher perspective in terms of adequate financial penalties where innocents are no longer scapegoated in this scenario, and good law firms AND clients alike can reclaim trust both in one another and the whole sorry system.

The Banks should never be allowed to divide and rule in this manner where again they exploited vulnerabilities with hidden agendas by working with law firms who it transpired were also duped ( or in some cases transpired to be knowingly complicit) in their failures to provide legal BGs  ( non independence) as Banks purposefully turned blind eyes to such essential adherence to BG law with full adherence to safeguarding of deposited monies.

Their manipulative behaviour has done untold damage to trust which will sadly take years to overcome unless more is done to swiftly call for the Bank of Spain to act as effective regulator and the Government provide adequate resources in the interim, in the form of specialised courts for competent trusted and effective fast tracking of outstanding claims with timely  judicial enforcement.

In the interim, thank you for your patience to listen, to continue to educate, and willingness to seek out ways to improve the status quo. I hope and trust that those who have problems re communicating will also gain some understanding of the complex and highly procedural elements to achieve justice under the status quo, which accounts for all too many of the significant background delays associated with rightful  recovery of all of their entitled monies.

Stay safe and strong and good luck with all your continuing endeavours

Best regards.

Thread: CostaLuz Lawyers are the best


ads' blogs

ads's rentals

ads's properties for sale

Spain insurance services

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