this Supreme Court Posted a new sentence on May 4 trying to clarify the definition of usury in the face of avalanches complaints about revolving cards and conflicting decisions regarding prices.
In this decision, the third since 2015, the Supreme Court confirmed what was stated by the Albacete Provincial Court. With an equivalent annual rate (APR) of 24.5%, the price of a contracted revolving card in 2006 is not a user because around the issuance of the aforementioned card, “it was usual for revolving cards under contract with major banking institutions to rise up to 23%, 24%, 25% and 26% per year”, he adds, which is being replicated today.
With this sentence, The Supreme Court has come to clear up confusion about what the “normal price for money” is for this product.. So far, the Supreme Court’s decision in 2020 has formed the basis for the relevant courts to publish their decisions in a range of different price references published by the Bank of Spain.
What was happening with contract cards before 2020?
Since the Bank of Spain did not issue specific price references for revolving cards before 2010, Most of the courts used the data of the loans as a reference. consumption. But now Supreme makes it very clear that these are not comparable categories and the reference should be the specific APR of the spinning cards. The real problem here is that no government agency in Spain takes into account or calculates the average APR of revolving products; this is the one to look at to see if a price is a usurer.
That way, in the Supreme Court’s new decision, “the parties will have to prove what the usual APRs that banks associate with their doner products, which means they’ll have to know what those market prices are at the time of contract for the card, and so we can identify whether it’s a user or not,” explains iAhorro. Antonio Gallardo, expert at financial comparator Banqmi. Gallardo further adds, “In the TEDR, the interest rate on which decisions made so far are based, lower rates are reflected than the client actually paid when contracting the revolving card because it does not take commissions into account. contract and/or issue”.
Winning a case against a spinning card will be more complicated
Sources from the legal industry that Banqmi consulted state that: It is equally valid to sue a banking institution for the prices charged for a revolving card, since this Supreme Court ruling does not constitute a “correction of stated legal doctrine”.. But other sources explain that the new sentence “could end litigation regarding the returned product and even change the meaning of pending penalties.”
So far, all users who reported the interest charged over using a revolving card won the case. Now this possibility is at least more uncertain. Therefore, if the person in question loses the trial, there is a risk of being penalized “as well as having to pay attorney’s fees and attorney’s fees. proclaims Antonio Gallardo, who advises them to carefully consider one’s results.