There was a lack of transparency, but no abuse. The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has already issued a verdict on the legality of mortgages linked to the Mortgage Loan Reference Index (IRPH).
The High Court considers that, following the jurisprudence of the TJUE, "it has appreciated the lack of transparency for not having informed itself about the index of the two previous years", but, nevertheless, and also following the jurisprudence of the TJUE, it concludes that there was no abuse in the cases prosecuted.
This is a very positive ruling for the banking sector, since, at least in the four cases tried by the Supreme Court, no abuse was found and, therefore, IRPH is not null and void and should not be replaced by another index or removed from the mortgage contract, which had caused great division among Spanish judges.
While waiting for the Supreme Court to release the full content of the ruling, in a very brief note it has concluded that in the four appeals decided in relation to the IRPH, there was a lack of transparency, but no abuse.
CASE BY CASE
In this sense, everything points to the fact that, as agreed by the TJUE, it should be the judges who, in each specific case, should analyse whether there was transparency and whether the clause can be considered abusive, in such a way that the ruling, according to the experts consulted, will not resolve the judicial chaos, with a division between judges who have agreed with consumers and others who have been positioning themselves in favour of the banks, as El Confidencial has already reported. A judicial chaos generated by the lack of a single criterion regarding IRPH. For example, according to data from Asufin, from the time of the European verdict until mid-July, the courts have handed down 28 judgments in favour of consumers and 20 against. Read more
How can we help you? Contact us now.
