The High Court opens the door for any extra money consumers have paid to be returned, even before May 2013, even though there have been previous verdicts
Consumers covered by the bottom clauses can collect anything they overpaid without any deadline and without even claiming it. That is how the Court of Justice of the European Union rules in a ruling known today. Thus, it provides that national courts adjudicating a case of abusive clauses may of their own motion investigate whether there has been an infringement and order the full restitution of the sums unduly paid for those clauses in a mortgage, even if the consumer concerned has not objected submitted. This as long as the lack of dispute by the user is not due to a “total passivity” thereof, according to a decision that the consumer agrees after a preliminary question from the Spanish Supreme Court.
The CJEU ruling comes after receiving a preliminary ruling from the Spanish Supreme Court, referring to a case in which a consumer who took out a mortgage in 2006 with Banco CEISS (which became part of Unicaja) ten years later, in 2016, amounts paid by a bottom clause. Specifically, the contract stated that the interest rate on the loan would never fall below 3% per annum and, when the Euribor collapsed in 2009, that cap prevented the interest rate from falling below that percentage.
The judicial journey started when a court of first instance in Valladolid agreed with the concerned party and ordered the annulment and reimbursement, but only from 9 May 2013. The consumer then did not claim any previous amounts because that was the teaching of the supreme. But the bank appealed in July 2016 and appeared to disagree with the cost of the lawsuit. That same year, the European Justice already ruled that the doctrine of the Most High was contrary to Union law, so that the bank would have to repay the money to those affected from the start of the mortgage. A year later, however, another ruling from Valladolid was limited to agreeing to cost the entity, without mentioning the ruling that benefited the consumer.
Given the gibberish, the party involved decided to file a claim with the Supreme Court, which eventually asked the CJEU whether principles like asking for justice (which prevents a judge from granting something unsolicited) or ‘reformatio’ in these cases should be applied. in peius’ (so that the outcome of an appeal cannot harm the appellant).
Source: La Verdad
I’m Wayne Wickman, a professional journalist and author for Today Times Live. My specialty is covering global news and current events, offering readers a unique perspective on the world’s most pressing issues. I’m passionate about storytelling and helping people stay informed on the goings-on of our planet.
