The historic decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EUA) in December 2016 walking full past on matters basic provisions marked before and after and made a way mortgage litigation threshold. This phenomenon has not ended, and even today, several lawsuits continue to be filed every day. With such an avalanche, the judicial delay stepped in and many affected had to patiently arm themselves to get their money back. And a good proof of this is a case in the city of Olívica in September 2016, which was started a few months before the European verdict was even known, and had to wait until now for a final decision. The mortgagee can finally get back some of the excess taken by the bank. banking institutionjust over 5,000 euros for the implementation of the disputed ground.
To understand what happened, we must go back to 2015, when this man sued in 2003 for the annulment of the base clause involved when he signed a mortgage loan contract with the then Banco de Galicia. As a matter of fact, in June 2016, the Vigo Commercial Court declared the stipulation null and void. Two months later, in September, the affected party went further and filed a second lawsuit, with the judgment set aside, The amount you have overpaid since May 2013 will be refunded.this was what had been set as the limit of claim by the Supreme Court at the time.
The first court to consider this claim, the Vigo 2nd Instance Court, partially upheld the claim and in January 2017 ordered the bank to refund 5,063 euros to the affected party together with statutory interest. The case was appealed to the Sixth Division of the Pontevedra State Court, which agreed with the bank, which at the end of 2017 lifted the first sentence and acquitted it by appreciating the final judgment exception. The 2015 lawsuit declaring the mortgage land invalid. The mortgaged towel did not throw away and decided to offer Extraordinary appeal for breach of procedure and appeal to the Supreme Court.
“Legal uncertainty”
There was where things got long in the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. Since 2018, when the appeal came, no penalty has been imposed so far, especially until April 21. The judges’ conclusion is that the sentence given in the first-instance court, that is, the judgment that gave the reasoning to the mortgagee, should be upheld. The Court considers that there is no final judgment given the legal features surrounding the issue of these essential articles. This did not happen until the CJEU’s famous December 2016 decision, recalling that “the dispute over the scope of extradition has not been definitively resolved after the declaration of nullity of the clause” in 2015, when the first action seeking only annulment was filed. That is, since the “legal uncertainty” in question existed at the time, The reason why the refund was instituted in a second caseit’s over now.