Supreme Court avoids complaint against magistrates for favoring banks over mortgage index application

This was pointed out to El Periódico de España by sources from the aforementioned law firm, who did not rule out that their complaint was ultimately inadmissible in the supreme court, and after that life was exhausted.Continuing the fight for the correct application of European law There is the Constitutional Court and even the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on this issue.

In mid-March, Arriaga filed a complaint with the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court against Civil Judges Ignacio Sancho Gargallo, Rafael Sarazá Jimena, Pedro José VeraTorres and Juan María Díaz Fraile, who, according to him, delivered sentences in the case. The IRPH is unfair. According to the office, resolutions are used “general and massive” arguments in favor of position banks and to consumers.

Just a few weeks later, on 31 March, the Chamber chaired by Manuel Marchena issued an order reminding that this body, the Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, is not authorized to hear this matter because of the Jurisdiction Body Act (LOPJ), ’61. Refers to the special Chamber called ‘article’, as set out in that principle, jurisdiction when “all or most of those who compose it” in cases brought against the presidents of the Chambers or the judges of the supreme court. On trial” , How is the situation. This led to a lawsuit being filed “without prejudice to the complainant’s right to have his claim reproduced before the relevant body”, in the order this newspaper has reached.

Faced with this, Arriaga is dissatisfied and on May 6 forwarded the complaint to the same magistrates The presentation as to whether Article 61 had been adopted before the Chamber and was new corresponded to the magistrate Antonio del Moral. The 61st Chamber is a special court composed of the President of the Supreme Court, Carlos Lesmes; The heads of each of the five chambers and the oldest and most modern magistrates are at their entrance to the body.

The lawyers’ case responds to three sentences given by the Court of Cassation Civil Chamber late last January regarding the invalidity of the IRPH clause in mortgage contracts. Although not transparent, The article is not abusive as there is no need to inform the customer as it is an official index..

This is how the Supreme Court decided on the application of the criteria of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ABAD). In its decision, he reiterated that the IRPH is not an abusive index and clarified that the bank is not required to deliver to the consumer a previous brochure that collects the previous evolution of the index.

index published on BOE

But according to Arriaga Asociados, CJEU demands to examine every case The IRPH individually allows the consumer to know the cost of their loan, without taking into account the lack of access of any average consumer in the 2000s, while Supreme uses general arguments like the IRPH is only published in the BOE. It doesn’t explain the BOE and how the index works. “Supreme Court It exempts banks from informing their customers even if they cause serious damage. for them, it is against the CJEU”, they insist from the office.

Likewise, the firm cites only half of the paragraph of the CJEU’s judgment on the existence of public data available and accessible in the Supreme Court’s IRPH index (BOE), and “willfully and maliciously The second part of the paragraph where Europe says that the bank must comply with its obligation to inform in person”.

On the other hand, the bureau reminds that the Court of Cassation, with a decision dated February 15, ruled that withdrawing the consumer’s objection does not require compensation to the consumer. ordered costs For the IRPH due to the lack of “registered interest” in the case.

In the opinion of Arriaga Asociados, this “highly encourage all consumers not to appeal Appeal against the IRPH without examining a specific case, as required by the Court of Justice of the European Union.possible coercion“, when the Supreme Court “urges and pressures the consumer not to file or withdraw an IRPH appeal against their wishes, on the premise of saving costs.”

words of Lenaerts

Bureau sources also refer to the following statements made by Koen Lenaerts, President of the European Union Court of Justice, during an action he organized in Madrid last week. “States cannot have different views on the Law of the Union“.

Matters related to the IRPH failed to calm down after the last position of the ABAD. In fact, a court no. 17 in Palma de Mallorca in the Balearic Islands submitted a preliminary ruling to this institution on April 19, in which it was the first time financial institutions had unfair practice in the marketing of IRPH-related mortgages.

This is the second attempt on the IRPH submitted by Judge Margarita Isabel Poveda before the CJEU in less than fifteen days. If the two issues raised by the magistrate Francisco González de Audicana of the 38th Court of First Instance of Barcelona are added to those of the Balearic court, there are currently four issues pending before the European court. Doubtful in relation to the mortgage index.