The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that the Spanish jurisprudence that limits the period for claiming mortgage expenses is contrary to European law.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that the Spanish jurisprudence that limits the period for claiming mortgage expenses is contrary to European Law, since it counts the limitation period from payment thereof without considering whether the user knows his rights and has time to appeal.
The ruling opens the door to extending the limitation periods so that clients can request the banks to reimburse these expenses when the clause is abusive since, according to the court, the consumer must be able to know their rights before the period begins to expire. run or expire and have sufficient material time to file an appeal.
The CJEU ruled in this way when asked by the Provincial Court of Barcelona about four cases in which users claimed from Caixabank, BBVA, Banco Santander and Banco Sabadell the reimbursement of the notary, registration and management expenses of a mortgage on the grounds that the clause that forced them to pay them was abusive and, therefore, void.
The banks argued that the ten-year period to claim repayment had expired, but the court of first instance rejected this argument and ordered them to pay, so they appealed to the Provincial Court, except in the case of Sabadell, where the court He agreed with the entity and the users appealed.
The Barcelona court then asked the CJEU to interpret the European directive on unfair terms to determine when the limitation period begins to run and what knowledge a consumer must have about the abusive 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 that begins to count from the last payment of the expenses, without it being considered pertinent for the consumer to know the legal assessment of the facts.
The court points out that establishing a limitation period is not in itself contrary to the principle of effectiveness as long as it does not make it impossible or excessively difficult for the rights to be exercised and, to this end, the period must be “materially sufficient” for the consumer to prepare and file an appeal.
Thus, the period is only compatible with this principle if the consumer was able to know his rights before said period began to run or expired.
In Spain, the Supreme Court confirmed in 2021 that banks have to pay 100% of the appraisal, registration and management costs and half of the notary fees, when the mortgage clause that granted exclusive payment is declared void. to the client.
Source: Eitb
I’m Tifany Hawkins, a professional journalist with years of experience in news reporting. I currently work for a prominent news website and write articles for 24NewsReporters as an author. My primary focus is on economy-related stories, though I am also experienced in several other areas of journalism.