Parliamentary groups endorsing a new Authority for the Defense of Financial Clients are finalizing measures that would impose higher penalties on banks, insurers, brokers, and other financial firms. In coordination with the Ministry of Economy, the ruling party is negotiating changes to the government’s draft to require these entities to contribute more to funding the agency, according to multiple sources that corroborate the report from El Periódico and the Prensa Iberica network [Attribution: El Períodico].
The plan will be debated in a closed session within the Congress economics committee on Tuesday. Socialists aim to secure enough backing to advance the proposal at the next meeting of the lower house, scheduled for today or, in principle, Thursday. Proposals include adjustments to the funding model: a fixed 250-euro charge per request was contemplated, with organizations covering the costs while the process remains free for those affected.
Under the proposed framework, forty percent of the organization’s operating costs would be distributed in proportion to the number of cases resolved, while the remaining sixty percent would be allocated based on the share of favorable rulings issued to claimants across each legal entity. The annual figure for global temporary income would be estimated, with final expenditure set in April of the following year once the institution’s total costs are known.
more news
Further changes are expected. The groups also consider reducing the amount for which the authority’s decisions would be binding on entities (not customers). The government bill currently sets it at 20,000 euros, covering roughly 95% of existing compensation claims. Parties and partners in the executive alliance speculate that this amount could be lowered without harming customers. If it had remained at 10,000 euros, about 90% of claims would have been covered anyway.
A key aspect under review concerns access to the courts. The government’s draft would allow organizations to challenge the agency’s decisions either through contentious administrative proceedings in the national court system for binding decisions or by civil proceedings in non-binding cases. The Judiciary Council (CGPJ) and the Finance Council have warned about potential legal gaps and are examining whether all avenues of appeal could be redirected toward civil litigation in some scenarios.
Improvements to regulations governing basic payment accounts — which banks must offer to vulnerable groups, including non-residents — are also on the table. Work is underway to define a framework for potential clients who have not signed a contract with the institution but claim damages.
controversial rate
Economics Vice President Nadia Calviño opened discussions in early March about revising the fee that has existed since the outset. Critics from various quarters warn that the flat 250-euro rate per accepted claim could push firms to accept smaller requests to avoid costs, potentially triggering a surge in demand. The opposition has pressed for reductions. PP, PNV, Cs, Junts, and PdeCat have proposed alternative schemes to ease the burden on businesses or to lower the fee to 100–50 euros depending on the case, should the new body side with such changes and resist client losses. PSOE and Unidas Podemos initially offered no concrete proposals, though this appears to be part of a broader negotiation strategy as talks wrap up this week.
Regarding the claim amount that would be binding, PNV and PdeCat suggested lowering the threshold from 20,000 euros to 2,000 euros; PP pushed for 1,000 euros; and Cs urged 6,000 euros. The ERC recommended making all agency decisions binding, or alternatively applying binding rules up to 100,000 euros. Banking employers AEB and CECA have argued for removing binding status from some decisions and, if kept, extending it to include claims of smaller amounts. AEB specifically proposed a 5,000-euro threshold.