The Court of Justice of the European Union is of the opinion that Spanish case law limiting the period for declaring mortgage costs is contrary to European law.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that Spanish case law limiting the period for declaring mortgage payments is contrary to European law as it includes the limitation period from payment thereof without checking whether the user knows his rights and has time to appeal.
The ruling opens the door to an extension of the limitation periods, so that customers can request the banks to reimburse these costs if the clause is unlawful, as according to the court, consumers must be able to know their rights before the period expires. or expired and have sufficient material time to file an appeal.
For example, in response to questions from the Provincial Court of Barcelona, the CJEU ruled on four cases in which users of Caixabank, BBVA, Banco Santander and Banco Sabadell claimed reimbursement of the notary, registration and management costs of a mortgage on the grounds that the clause forcing them to pay them was unlawful and therefore void.
The banks argued that the ten-year period for claiming repayment had expired, but the court of first instance rejected this argument and ordered them to pay. Therefore, they appealed to the Provincial Court, except in Sabadell’s case, where the court agreed. with the entity and the users against whom the appeal has been lodged.
The Barcelona court then asked the CJEU to interpret the ruling European unfair terms directive to determine when the limitation period starts to run and what knowledge a consumer must have about the unlawful nature of the clause.
In its ruling, the European Court points out that the directive opposes an interpretation of national law according to which there is a limitation period of ten years starting from the last payment of the costs, without it being considered important that the consumer knows the legal assessment of the facts.
The court points out that establishing a limitation period in itself does not conflict with the principle of effectiveness, as long as it does not make the exercise of the rights impossible or excessively difficult, and to this end the period must be ‘materially sufficient’. ” for the consumer to prepare and file an appeal.
The period is therefore only compatible with this principle if the consumer could have known his rights before the period started or expired.
In Spain, the Supreme Court confirmed in 2021 that banks must pay 100% of the valuation, registration and management costs and half of the notary costs if the mortgage clause that granted exclusive payment to the customer is annulled.
Source: EITB
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.
