Recent Sentences from the Supreme Court on this interesting matter:
- STS 20 January 2017 – STS 39/2017
The Sentence relates to contracts which were marketed as “Holiday Clubs” instead of Timeshare resorts. The Supreme Court understands they are under the application of law 42/98 as follows:
“They aim the periodic use of holiday weeks, in pre-acquired turns, in lodgings which can be used in an independent way, with accessory furniture and services, with the payment of an outstanding amount for the acquisition of the right and annual maintenance fees, with withdrawal, resale and exchange options. In short, they are under the objective scope of Law 42/98”
These contracts were formalized with a total lack of submission to Law 42/98: they do not reflect the legal minimum content established in provision 9 of Law 42/98. The consumers could not know what the legal regime applicable to the contract was.
Therefore, they are considered null and void by the Supreme Court in this recent Court decision. This implies that a refund of all amounts paid plus legal interest should occur.
(Involved: Silverpoint Vacations S.L. & Resort Properties Limited)
- STS 20 January 2017—SSTS 37/2017 & 38/2017
These two Court decisions are interesting because they state that the lucrative character of the acquisitions do not evade the application of law 42/98. Against the argument which affirmed that there existed a financial gain and that this Consumer regulation should not apply, The Supreme Court states that always the revenues are obtained in the private sphere of the buyer and not as a professional, source of the contracts of the said revenues are protected by Consumer Law.
(Involved: Silverpoint Vacations & Resort Properties Limited: Beverly Hills Club, Hollywood Mirage, Club Paradiso)
Alájar, Sierra de Aracena, Huelva, Costa de la Luz, South western Spain