The judge refers to the doctrine issued by the Supreme Court in March 2020. The card began to be used in 1999, when there were still pesetas, and the contract set an APR of 24.60% which was later increased to 26.82%. As a summary, and having seen the statement of movements, the card user had 17,202 euros over time, but came to pay more than 45,000 due to the high interest rates that were applied. The woman alleged in her complaint that she was not given a copy of the contract or explained how the revolving system works. The entity objected, stating that the plaintiff was aware of the economic conditions applied and that the remunerative interest applied was adequate for deferred payment credit cards.
After analyzing both arguments, the court fully estimates the claim, declaring the card contract invalid due to usury and condemning the bank to pay the 28,245 euros that the woman had to pay in interest. “There are already many sentences against this entity and many others due to the usurious nature of the credits; the consequence is that the entity must return everything collected in interest and other concepts, that is, everything that is not the capital loaned ”, explains José Basanta Collazo, of Basanta & Tarrío Abogados, a lawyer who represented the plaintiff in this legal proceeding. In any case, it should be noted that in this matter the amount that the woman has managed to recover is “especially relevant”, which exceeds 28,000 euros. “There are many users who have these cards and are unaware of the possibility they have to claim,” he warns.
Supreme
In the ruling, the judge refers to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which indicates that the comparative parameter to determine usury is the APR of operations similar to the one at issue and not the general interest of consumer loans. “But it is peaceful that at the date of contracting there were no specific statistics in the Bank of Spain for this type of products, which were included in the category of consumer credit”, it is added on the particularities to apply in this case. And taking this into account, it is concluded that the APR of 24.60% “significantly exceeds” that of consumer loans at the time, without the bank “having alleged exceptional circumstances that justify the disproportion”.
With the consideration of usury of the loan, and by virtue of the law that regulates this issue for a century, the client is only obliged to pay the amount received. In this case, it was 17,200 euros. The sentence is not final and against it it is possible to appeal to the Provincial Court of Pontevedra.
– .
