The Supreme Court has studied this Wednesday the first cases of mortgages linked to the IRPH index after the ruling of the EU Court that established that national judges could enter to examine their transparency.
The conclusion of the Plenary of the Civil Chamber has been that in the four cases examined the banks acted "with a lack of transparency."
However, it rejects that this meant that the clause that included the IRPH was abusive, so it rejects the request of the consumers and does not cancel the index.
The decision has the dissenting vote of magistrate Javier Arroyo Fiestas.
The Civil Chamber has only reported the ruling, since the sentences will take a few days to be drawn up.
The note made public indicates that the Civil Chamber, "in the four appeals resolved, following the jurisprudence of the CJEU, has appreciated a lack of transparency for not having reported on the evolution of the index for the previous two years. However, and following also the jurisprudence of the CJEU, has proceeded to make the analysis of abuse, concluding, in the cases prosecuted, that there was no abuse ".
This is the second
of the Supreme Court to the thesis of consumer and user organizations that these mortgages should be considered void due to lack of transparency, as the IRPH interest system had not been clearly explained to clients, which ended up being much more onerous than the majority Euribor.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
See links of interest
Dynamo Kiev - Juventus, live
Zenit - Bruges, live
Barça - Acunsa Gipuzkoa Basket
Barcelona - Ferencvaros, live
Chelsea - Sevilla, live