A magistrate of Alicante means that the entity that placed the clients in a situation "clearly disadvantaged"
The fault picks that were "unduly" the expenditure of a mortgage, and says that the claimants could not intervene.
The valencian Community, the three criteria to the judgment of the mortgage
After the storm and judicial policy that has been awakened in the judgment of the Supreme Court (TS) that requires banks to pay the tax of the mortgage -now pending review-, a judge in Alicante -the judges of this city have decided to apply the doctrine of the Supreme without waiting for the ultimate criterion - has issued one of the first sentences of Spain sentenced the bank to pay the costs. Broadly speaking, understands that the customers were not on an equal footing and that the expenditure to which they had to deal are abusive.
THE WORLD has had access to the sentence in which the judge understood that there was a prejudice manifest to consumers, and considers that the bank, says, "placed the plaintiffs in a situation clearly disadvantaged in the negotiation." Therefore, condemns the bank to pay 6,000 euros in concept of interests of a mortgage to a man who contracted a debt of 147,000 euros in the year 2010. The lawsuit, filed by lawyer Salvador Reyes of the office Rojano and Kings, submitted in July 2017 and was notified last Tuesday.
The ruling stated "were unduly" the expenditure of office of a Notary (246,90 euros), Registry (194), of the Tax on Documented Legal Acts (2.359) and the agency (250). A few expenses that add up to 4.100 euros, which, argues the judge, united to the interests of delay raises the amount to 6,000 euros. The magistrate is particularly strong with mortgage expenses: "the clauses referred to are to be imposed on borrowers with a plurality of concepts, so that the entity ensures that any costs arising from the mortgage loan will be borne by consumers."
The magistrate, as stated in the judgment, understands that the plaintiffs had no ability to maneuver. "Should be considered as the character predisposed to general and tax of the provisions challenged, which were imposed by the professional, without which the plaintiffs could influence their content and, therefore, without individual negotiation".
"Such considerations -he continues - are extensible to the conditions relating to default interest, written in terms burdensome for the borrowers and for the benefit preponderant to the bank".
Is more, Reyes points to the european institutions: "if it is ultimately limiting the effects of the nullity of the clauses relating to the tax, shall be open to the pathway of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as has already happened with the clauses soil in which it was decided that the banks should return the favor of consumers the amounts charged unduly, without limitation as to time".
After resolving that they would apply the Supreme Court's ruling despite the warning by the High Court that it will review its decision on the 5th of November, the judges of Alicante in the matter continue to be held, view in a dynamic way. So much so, that in a single day have been held 15 pre-trial hearings.
In all of them, none of the parties requested the suspension of unanimously, the necessary condition for reversing, so that the judgments against them will remain subject to the judgment of the Supreme subject to supervision. There has been an especially significant where the lawyer of the client of the bank requested the magistrate to suspend the view waiting for the High Court to issue its final decision. Against all odds, the legal representative of the bank objected and wanted the view to continue, with what was held.
And another fact that illustrates the dynamism with which you are working on this matter: in one week the holder of First Instance number 5 -with the backing of two other judges - has placed a total of 23 sentences in which it resolved that it is the bank which should bear the costs of the tax of mortgages. Until the 5 of November, the judges of Alicante are planning to hold around 150 views in this matter.
The judges of Valencia and Castellón, on the contrary, have resolved to wait for the Supreme court to rule definitively to celebrate views.
According to the criteria ofLearn more Updated Date: 26 October 2018, 02:20