What has the Spanish Supreme Court decided?
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that the statute of limitations for claiming the refund of notary, property registry, and administrative costs paid by consumers when signing a mortgage does not begin until a final court ruling invalidates the obligation. This decision aligns with a precedent set by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Why is this ruling significant?
This ruling extends the deadline for consumers to claim refunds on overpaid mortgage expenses. Previously, the deadline was believed to have expired in April of this year. With this new decision, many more consumers can now pursue legal action against banks.
What are the implications for consumers?
Consumers who paid more than their fair share of mortgage-related costs now have a longer period to file claims. The statute of limitations starts from the date of a final court decision declaring the relevant clause invalid, not from when the costs were originally paid.
How does this ruling affect banks?
Banks may face a surge of new claims from consumers seeking refunds on mortgage expenses. This ruling reverses the Supreme Court's previous stance from January 2019, which had mandated a 50-50 split of mortgage constitution costs between banks and consumers.
What prompted the Supreme Court to change its position?
The Supreme Court's change follows a CJEU ruling in February, which clarified that consumers cannot effectively claim their rights until a final court decision is made. The European court stressed that consumers might not be aware of the national jurisprudence impacting their claims.
How does this align with European law?
The ruling aligns with European law by ensuring that consumers have adequate time and awareness to claim refunds. It underscores the consumer's right to not bear the full cost of mortgage-related expenses when such clauses are deemed abusive.
What should consumers do next?
Consumers who believe they overpaid mortgage-related expenses should consult with legal experts to understand their rights and potentially initiate claims. This ruling provides a renewed opportunity to seek refunds that were previously thought to be time-barred.