CaixaBankthe Spanish bank most exposed to litigation over IRPHconsiders that the latest European, and also Spanish, rulings validate the marketing of mortgages referenced to this index.
The entity, with 4,165 million of euros in IRPH mortgages sold to clients, has decided in its 2023 accounts no provisionar any amount related to the matter, despite the litigation it has generated.
The bank chaired by José Ignacio Goirigolzarri maintains that the “four resolutions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued to date have provided clarity to the prosecution of the lawsuits that question the lack of transparency of the loans that included the IRPH index”, as well as the sentences issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court.
«The main legal conclusion of the current judicial framework and without prejudice to its eventual evolution, is the validity of mortgage loans that include such an index«, states CaixaBank.
«The relevant thing is that the eventual declaration of lack of transparency requires the Supreme Court, in accordance with reiterated doctrine of the CJEU, to consecutively carry out a abuse trial and such abuse -due to the existence of bad faith and significant imbalance- has no place in these casess”, defends CaixaBank.
Financial associations and lawyers for clients with mortgages referenced to the IRPH are not so clear.
Negative differential
Last July the CJEU ruled on the conflict again, this time after thel Court of First Instance number 17 of Palma de Mallorca present a preliminary ruling to assess whether the banks engaged in an abusive practice when marketing IRPH mortgages without applying a negative differential.
While CaixaBank positively values the July ruling of the CJEU, the former judge of the Supreme Court Javier Orduña estimates that it is favorable for banking clients.
Former Supreme Court Judge Javier Orduña considers that the July ruling of the CJEU is favorable for financial clients
The European court “establishes the new parameters of abusiveness applicable to assess the IRPH, and this does so based on the knowledge it has had thanks, fundamentally, to the preliminary ruling question raised,” explains Orduña.
Javier Orduña, who left his position in the Supreme Court in mid-2019, cast a dissenting vote in the March 2015 Supreme Court ruling on floor clauses, in which defended the full refund of interest charged by financial entities unduly to holders of mortgages with floor clauses. At the end of 2016, the CJEU established the full return of this interest.
“The first warning that the CJEU makes is that it considers it pertinent that the financial institution had warned that it was not just another index, but rather a peculiar index, basically a true APR,” estimates the former Supreme Court judge.
Asufinthe financial clients association, believes that the CJEU’s July ruling is “devastating«. The banks “have hidden behind the fact that all the information was published by the Bank of Spain and in the Official State Gazette (BOE). Finally the CJEU makes it very clear that it is not enough,” he defends.
The current Minister of Labor, Yolanda Díaz, at a rally in 2016 in Ferrol to support those affected by the IRPH. EFE
CaixaBank, however, in its 2023 financial report, published yesterday Friday in the CNMVsays that, the appearance «positive and decisive» of the July ruling of the CJEU is that «in the event that a lack of transparency is declared, it is necessary to carry out an abuse control (the parameters of which are not altered with respect to the already established doctrine: it is considered that good faith is present and that an imbalance is not generated for the consumer).
Former Supreme Court Judge Javier Orduña considers that it is not debatable that The competence to establish the parameters of the judgment of abuse lies with the CJEU, not the Supreme Court.. “Nor is it debatable that these parameters oblige, bind, our jurisdictional bodies, our judges have to apply EU law as interpreted by the CJEU, and it is not debatable whether, in fact, the sentences are clear and precise.”
CaixaBank concludes that the rulings of the CJEU and the Supreme Court have clarified “the full validity of the contract and the absence of current risk regarding the possible outflow of resources due to a possible declaration of lack of transparency.
In accordance “with the timeliness and legal reasonableness of what was expressed, as well as the best information available to date”, CaixaBank does not maintain provisions for this concept, it indicates. “Without prejudice to having a fund to cover eventual disbursements isolated in specific cases where the Court applies a doctrine that is dissonant with that established by the Supreme Court. Add.
2024-02-17 03:57:11
#CaixaBank #million #IRPH #mortgages #defends #validity #index #provisions
