This Supreme Court weighs the matter. If a citizen appears on the list, it does not damage their honor. Defaulters, however, have already been served and may face demand for the outstanding debt.
This stance was established by the Supreme Court in three sentences from the Plenary Session of the First Chamber, which addressed three appeals concerning: the prepayment requirement for the debtor, a condition of lawfulness; and the inclusion of personal data in credit information files, commonly known as the overdue files.
In a prior ruling dated 20 December, the Plenary of the Supreme Court held that the prepayment requirement persisted after Organic Law No. 3/2018 took effect. It is sufficient that the warning to be included in the file is conveyed in the contract.
The three judgments reiterate the First Chamber’s doctrine on the payment obligation, and the Supreme Court emphasizes that this is not merely a formal requirement; non-compliance can lead to an administrative sanction.
In Madrid, authorities dismantle a gang that defrauded six million people, removing about 140 individuals from their defaulters list
Surveillance, errors in banking, or data handling
This decision clarifies that the file’s purpose is to avoid including people due to a simple oversight, a banking error, or any analogous circumstance. Such data should not be kept merely to punish solvency issues.
It is stated that proof of receipt is not always required; presumptions or other evidence may suffice, provided there is a guarantee or reasonable evidence. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, as outcomes depend on the surrounding facts.
The prepayment requirement is said to include a relevant factual facet that is not subject to appeal. The focus of an objection may relate to legal criteria for compliance with the requirement but not to the factual data or the evidential assessment in each case.
In the first case cited by the Court of Cassation (decision 946/2022), the creditor bank’s appeal was dismissed because it was not proven that the communication had reached the debtor.
In a second appeal (decision 959/2022), findings of illegitimate interference with the debtor’s honor were rejected since the court accepted that notice was sent by regular mail to the address provided and that the letter was not returned.
The court added that, given the absence of evidence showing an incorrect address or postal service failure, there was sufficient proof of the communication reaching its destination, reinforcing the fulfillment of the requirement.
In the third case, the Supreme Court again ruled against illegitimate interference with the right to honor, due to evidence that two emails were sent to the address listed in the contract and that the debtor remained passively non-responsive (decision 960/2022).