El blog de Maria

ads said:
Thursday, June 30, 2022 @ 2:12 PM

Well done Maria.
Are these banks no longer contesting successful appeal rulings that were already in the system (P2) i.e. can they no longer take appeals to the Supreme Court relating to Ley 57/68?
In other words has legal doctrine relating to Ley 57/68 now been fully achieved in this regard?
If that is the case can first instance wins no longer be appealed by the Banks as judges have to acknowledge fully established legal doctrine?

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, June 30, 2022 @ 2:15 PM

Case Law doctrine in regards to law 57/68 is still not covered at everey angle. It can also vary, be precised along the time

ads said:
Thursday, June 30, 2022 @ 5:37 PM

Thanks Maria.
How are appeal court judges ruling in these instances where doctrine is not fully established? In the main are they still supportive of claimants? Are they awarding costs in these instances?
In which case are you witnessing the Banks increasingly submit Supreme Court appeals, and does this leave claimants unfairly having to fund their own SC costs in defence of their cases?

mariadecastro said:
Friday, July 1, 2022 @ 9:41 AM

Banks keep fighting till Supreme Court in cases where the investor profile is being disputed and also in cases where control possibiities of the banks are being challenged.

Every case is different

ads said:
Friday, July 1, 2022 @ 7:15 PM

In these outstanding instances that you refer to, where the SC might find in favour of the claimant when the Bank have submitted an appeal to the SC, will the claimant be expected to meet their own costs relating to this SC procedure? Are these SC costs never recoverable?

In which case might this be a means by which the Banks are trying to disincentivise claimants from endeavouring to make Banks adhere to controls intended to effectively administer their obligations in the true spirit of protective law LEY 57 68?