This Supreme Court thinks about it If a citizen is included in the list, there is no interference with honor. defaulters however, he was previously served and demanded the payment of the outstanding debt.
This was established by the Supreme Court in three sentences of the Plenary Session of the First Chamber, which decided on three appeals concerning: The prepayment requirement to the debtor, which is one of the conditions of “lawfulness” The inclusion of personal data in credit information files is more commonly known as overdue files.
Similarly, in another previous decision of 20 December, the Plenary of the Supreme Court decided that this prepayment requirement remained after the entry into force of Organic Law No. 3/2018. It is sufficient that the warning to be included in the file is made in the contract.
The three judgments reiterate the First Chamber’s doctrine regarding the payment requirement, and the Supreme Court ” not just a formal requirement non-compliance can only lead to an administrative sanction”.
Surveillance, surveillance or banking errors
“This responds to the purpose of the file and avoid the inclusion of people because of a simple oversight, a banking error they are unrelated toor any other circumstance of a similar nature, these data did not fulfill an obligation without being related to prosecuting their solvency.”
Almighty states that the law does not require proof of the receipt in questionwhich can be considered proven by presumptions or any other method of proof, as long as it has a guarantee or reasonable evidence, will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, as in each case it depends on concurrent circumstances.
Therefore, he adds, the prepayment requirement has a “relevant factual aspect” that has no access to appeal. The object of the objection may only be questions regarding the legal criteria applicable to compliance with that requirement, but not the factual data or evidential assessment of each case.
In the first case referred to by the Court of Cassation (decision 946/2022), the appeal of the creditor bank was dismissed: The Court did not consider it to be proven that the communication had been received by the party concerned.
On a second appeal (decision 959/2022), illegitimate interference with the appellant’s right to honor was rejected because the Court accepted that this had been proven. sent by regular mail to your request address and that the letter was not returned.
“Based on these data, and since it was not alleged that the address was incorrect or the reception failed for reasons attributable to the postal service, there was no circumstance to conclude that the letter did not reach its destination, the Court reiterated that there was enough evidence accrediting the fulfillment of the requirement,” explains the court.
In the third case the Supreme it also eliminates illegitimate interference with the right to honor because there was evidence of sending two emails to the email address given in the contract by the debtor, who maintained a “totally passive” attitude towards the debt (decision 960/2022).