MADRID, 4 Jun. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The court of first instance number 4 of Valladolid has issued a ruling in which it indicates that “the period of five years established in general has not yet elapsed” to claim the expenses of the mortgage, according to Asufin in a statement.
In the sentence, the magistrate considers that the question about when it should or can be understood that the consumer had knowledge of the abusiveness in relation to the mortgage expenses is in an “uncertain scenario”.
“In this situation, and as long as this issue is not legally or jurisprudentially resolved, in a way that avoids legal uncertainty, it seems logical to understand that such term has to begin to be computed, either from the first sentence handed down by the Supreme Court [en 2015] which declared -as a general doctrine- the nullity due to abusiveness of the clause on expenses in mortgage loans, a sentence that was widely publicized in the media, which allowed a general knowledge of it, or from the subsequent sentence -also of great public repercussion- dated January 23, 2019 “.
Therefore, the court understands that whether 2015 or 2019 is the reference date, “the period of five years established in general has not yet elapsed” to claim mortgage expenses.
Asufin considers that this ruling “fuels the controversy” about the prescription or not of these claims and recalls that on June 23, the Supreme Court is expected to deliberate “to set criteria on the matter.”
In addition, it points out that the 2015 Civil Code reform reduced the statute of limitations for personal actions from 15 to 5 years. “The question is from what moment those five years begin to be calculated and when, consequently, the abusive nature of the clause can be determined.
“In Asufin we maintain that until the consumer knows the nullity of the clause of his contract, that is, when the sentence is materialized, he cannot begin to compute the term to demand the restitution of amounts,” says the association.
It also recalls that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs issued a statement on December 2 in which it stated that the deadline expired on January 21, 2021, so it would already be prescribed in most cases, after five years have elapsed since Sentence TS 705/2015 was made public. “In this way, the department endorsed the most restrictive interpretation and the one preferred by the banks.”
–
