legal Interest rates

Dear Maria,

Are these rates currently being contested by the Banks, or is it just the dates from which they are backdated that are being contested?

Has any recent further legal clarification been achieved at SC level with regard to backdated interest for those who originally won successful rulings against the developer who subsequently went into administration and then had to take action against the Banks? Is it correct to say that a general SC ruling for backdating interest to date of deposit ( as opposed to backdating only to the  date of subsequent Bank claim) has not yet been achieved  in these instances?

 Are there any further successful supportive SC rulings to report in this regard? 

Many thanks.

Rates are not being contested by Banks. Backdating is, but SC has already stated in several occassions ( three times so far in 2019: 

STS 25/06/2019

STS 21/05/2019

STS 14/03/2019

That law 57/68 interests are remunerative and therefore to be paid from date of payment into developer´s account.

Some banks are arguing " bath faith based delayed claim" for cutting down the interests period but Appeal Courts are very rightly deciding that the delay was well justified for (1) Precedent cases against developers, subsequent bankruptcy of these (3) Newnness of the Law 57/68 Case Law

M

Thank you Maria, much appreciated.

It still needs to be stressed however that the Banks are continuing with their legal fights beyond claimants successful appeal court judgements, by appealing to the Supreme Court, and until all aspects and clarification relating to interest payments achieve SC doctrine, then the claimant will be subjected to further litigation with all associated costs and delays.

The way that the Banks have been allowed to present piecemeal challenges in this way, as opposed to achieving once and for all full clarification of Ley 57/68  has sadly only added to the vulnerabilities of rightful claimants and ironically compromised the Spanish justice system, requiring significant additional resourcing, during the abusively lengthy interim processes.

Ads,

I've recently found out that my case (which started in 2016), has been won. First court date was last March. Decision in june 2018. The bank appealed. The second judgement I won, too. But they DIDNT appeal! For whatever reason. And they had about 7 weeks to appeal due to the court holidays in August.

Anyway, just letting you know that maybe the tide is turning for the banks, and maybe they ARENT appealing everything. Or at least until they know they wont win in SC. Actually, i think my solicitor said that the court had denied them the right to appeal (probably because of SC doctrine).

Just got to wait for the money now....queue the sad acts telling me i wont get it!

Good luck fazerelli.

Sadly it’s those who pioneered for justice and paved the way for others to succeed that now ironically appear to be being compromised under the scenario “ bad faith based delayed claim”, for which I trust all good law firms are fighting hard to achieve justice.

You couldn’t write this script where at every point the banks challenges have in their own manner been demonstrating bad faith to purposefully seek out every opportunity to challenge good supportive appeal rulings that have taken years to achieve. It’s a complete disgrace when you consider the inalienable rights supposedly afforded by Ley 57/68.

Many questions arise from such behaviour and all we can hope for is that the SC recognises these uncomfortable realities in their outstanding rulings or where relevant and with all due consideration in their judgements to not admit cassation appeals.

Dear Maria,

A complex question I'm afraid relating to additional delay interest as per the Zaragoza Bar Association chart included earlier in this thread ( which has been updated to the present date)  ....

Is it true that when Banks transfer a portion of interests (30%?) as well as the original deposit to the law firm representing claimants at point of claimants first instance successful rulings, ( only after preliminary enforcements) , but the Banks then go on to appeal these rulings ( sometimes all the way to the SC but then withdraw their appeals at the last minute) that due to the preliminary enforcement the claimant loses their right to claim additional delay interest on the deposited monies for the many intervening years between preliminary enforcement and achieving final rulings, and also they have to wait all those intervening years before they can reclaim any awarded costs?

Why is the SC therefore not acknowledging this purposeful continuing delay tactics on the part of the Banks by disincentives such as making the Banks pay additional delay interest on awarded costs and original deposit for all these intervening years post preliminary enforcement?

 Has this ever been challenged at the point of submitting final calculations for return of awarded costs and interest by Barristers, for judges consideration, with reasons stated as to why this additional delay interest is being claimed, I.e. in acknowledgement of BANKS MANIPULATIVE PURPOSEFUL DELAYS intended to financially compromise the claimant during these intervening years?