San Jose into liquidation.

Rather than make this a competition allowing banks to divide and rule, surely the way forward is to seek out realistic workable solutions and try to address areas in need of reform to assist in that process, without becoming too defensive?

Isn’t that the job of the authorities we elect and pay. Or are you of the opinion they have no idea what’s actually going on?.  

In Spain the problem is complex.

The banks are not adequately regulated ( as already exposed with the Bank Guarantee scenario) which sadly has led to a proliferation of litigation.

The conveyancing system and registration mechanisms have loopholes that have been exploited ( without mandatory structures  in place to protect at point of completion and property transfer).

Bar Associations have not acted to regulate their members to counter malpractice. Likewise with Notarial professionals who did not act with all due diligence with regard to provision of legal licences.

Conflicts between national regional and local administrations with regard to legal  planning permissions have caught up innocent citizens in their wake.

Reporting mechanisms intended to protect have not been used to their full potential to assist in the monitoring processes.

Adherence to the rule of law has been compromised by insufficient resources being made available  required to ensure  timely enforcement of justice in response to growing claims born from Banks malpractices and non adherence to existing law.

Inconsistencies of judicial rulings across regions have also played their part in the proliferation of appeals and requirement for Supreme Court clarifications.

Need I go on?

All of the above need to be addressed and recognised by the authorities not only at local but national levels...and some might argue with regard to adherence to the rule of law recognition is required at EU level.

Ads you are quite correct.

‘’All of the above need to be addressed and recognised by the authorities not only at local but national levels...and some might argue with regard to adherence to the rule of law recognition is required at EU level.’’

But this is not happening, could it be that the authorities are too busy with their noses in the trough?

Whatever the reasons it's important to first recognise and educate of the realities, as a starting point to the call for reform. 

All too often the tendency is to remain in denial and in some respects understandably be defensive and "loyal" to countries where you live and work  for all manner of emotive reasons, or to consider that because it doesn't affect you personally that turning a blind eye is acceptable.

There comes a point however where the stark realities lead to impacts that affect all in the longer term and require greater proactivity. 

And this is why I have been asking the question of good legal professionals to play their essential part in the reporting mechanisms intended to protect, and thereby highlight the areas in dire need of reform and resourcing. 

Ironically this requires that they demonstrate good faith and look outside of their own self interests and to the greater good of their profession and justice system as a whole.

Time will tell if they are willing to do so, but there are some who are taking great strides in that process by educating and striving for greater transparency. 

I live in hope that they can influence from within of the need to pay heed to this form of greater proactivity on their part... essential if we are to make progress and benefit all in the longer term. 

In that process of closing loopholes, adequate resourcing, provision of regulatory  structures, well functioning reporting and monitoring structures, the potential  to make Banks fully accountable in a fair and timely manner will be maximised. 

Win win. :)

This message was last edited by ads on 11/11/2017.

** EDITED - Against forum rules **** EDITED - Against forum rules **

The national authorities have to be formally informed with counter evidence in this crazy system under the EU before they themselves can be made accountable to take action against a member state....

In other words reporting and monitoring is essential.

P.s. please don't be so aggressive and personalising.

Its seems simple to me. When Law 57/68 was written down it should have already been safe for us to buy and all excuses of inadequacies of any Builders, Banks, Lawyers etc should have been sorted out. Shame on all who call this a working Law and thank heavens at least it is now exposed.

Chrissie 1

Arrogance plays a big part in human nature, especially those with authority and influence. So often it’s a case of we’ll do as we want, irrespective of anyone’s opinion.

Arrogance, greed, intransigence, closed minds, lack of respect and caring for fellow man, ... all human traits sadly demonstrated by many of those with authority and influence, that if left unregulated have the potential to proliferate division, undermine democracy and civilised progress.

Chrissie

I so relate to your posting. 

Ironically in the early days Keith Rule's petition identified the stark realities and called upon the powers that be ( a wide ranging list of those in positions of authority) for fast track specialised courts, greater banking regulation by the Bank of Spain,  a national registry of BGs,  fines etc.

He rightly highlighted that the Banks and Savings Banks who were supervised by the Bank of Spain were the "vehicle through which the illegalities were performed". 

He went on to identify in great detail remedies and solutions.

My point being that arrogance and closed minds played their part in the subsequent chaotic and abusively lengthy route to justice where the Banks were allowed (due to lack of adequate regulation and lack of specialised judicial resource) to use their power and financial resources to "play" the judicial system and thereby compromise not only innocent citizens but also the rule of law by bombarding the courts with appeals in full knowledge this would lead to abusive delays.

Although this is a simplification...you get the gist of how the Banks were given free reign to disrupt and delay justice.

This only goes to prove how essential it is for the powers that be to retain open minds, to demonstrate a willingness to listen to those who have proven intellectual capacity to identify loopholes in all their complex guises, to demonstrate humility to acknowledge alternative solutions, to the longer term "civilised" benefit of all.

Hi Ads

Everyone relates to my posting. I have been in contact with Keith on a few occasions. I have a Lawyer who has been fighting my case for the last 12 years and to be honest there have been mistakes and the whole situation is floored. I am grateful that our case was won but i have yet to receive any of our deposit. I do not feel i can say anything on the forum. I do not post very often. My health has suffered because of the lack of communication and my lack of understanding of the spanish law. Our case is now at Supreme Court level. I am sad.

Thanks again Ads. 

Chrissie 1

I have to ask the basic and logical question,  given Keith's assessment "the Banks and Savings Banks who were supervised by the Bank of Spain were the vehicle through which the illegalities were performed", then when banks consistently contest their legal responsibilities with regard to the inalienable rights provided through Ley 57/68 , why is this not considered to be acting in "bad faith"?

Inalienable rights..... rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws.

In light of the above has the issue of Banks acting in bad faith ever been established or made reference to at Supreme Court level, and wouldn't this once and for all clarify and give due respect to offplan purchasers inalienable rights?

Also are inalienable rights established at point of deposit into developer account  making banks complicit from that point in time, and has this been fully clarified at Supreme Court level?

Do the Supreme Court not have a legal obligation to recognise that full clarification of this law  as a whole is essential so as not to compromise the rule of law by leaving inalienable rights sufficiently unclarified allowing Banks to flood the justice system contesting these rights in the interim period?

This message was last edited by ads on 13/11/2017.

Ads,

Supreme Court is defining different aspects of its doctrine at the rythm of cases being presented to them.

Maria

Thank you for your posting. How many clients have you got who are in the same situation as myself who after 12 years have received nothing. Our case was won plus costs and interest and is now at Supreme Court level because of SGR. We have paid a few thousand euros already and it is not clear how much more it is going to cost albeit in years or euros. These things are not clear.

Thanks again

Chrissie 1

Maria,

Where you identify " Supreme Court is defining different aspects of its doctrine at the rythm of cases being presented to them. " presumably this means that Ley 57/68 is being clarified in a lengthy piecemeal fashion which to date appears to be compromising the rule of law ( until such time as sufficient court and judicial resources are made available), as more and more cases are interpreted differently, resulting in a proliferation of appeals leading to compromising delays and the subsequent requirement for more and more Supreme Court rulings.

Is there no opportunity within the Spanish system to recognise how this is compromising the rule of law so long as clarification is coming in a piecemeal fashion rather than as a whole.

Can the Supreme Court be requested by legal professionals as part of their ongoing claims that reach the SC, to request that they review this law as a whole, to recognise and fully clarify inalienable rights and the rights associated with the backdating of interest, and to act in all good faith with due regard to the knock on effects that have arisen as a direct consequence of variances in judicial interpretations in these lengthy interim periods?

Or, to your knowledge, is there any provision whereby the Supreme Court can be made to clarify this law as a whole using evidence (via reporting mechanisms) to demonstrate the proliferation of variances in judicial interpretations which have subsequently impacted the rule of law?

.

Chrissie:

We have a good number of clients in your same situation. Timeframes at the Supreme Court are extremely long. 

Ads: 

Supreme Court, is under the Civil Procedure Act in terms on when they can set doctrine.There are reforms of the Appeal before the Supreme Court ( cassation) that are necessary and have been discussed, mainly for the reduction of timeframes  in order to protect the constitutional right to a " process with no unduly delays"

Also, as you very well say Ads, these reforms would foster the issuing of legal doctrine by the Supreme Court so all sectors of the system can enjoy the necessary " legal safety"  and the right for uniform application of Law in the whole national territory of Spain is fully preserved.

Thank you Maria.

Are inalienable rights now established at point of deposit into developer account  making banks complicit to adhere to all articles of Ley57/68 from date of deposit, with all due regard to Supreme Court clarification that has been achieved to date?

Can a Bank for instance in their response to appeal suggest that they do not recognise any Supreme Court rulings that have acted as clarification in the interim periods?

Also are judges obliged (as part of the legal safety measures you make reference to), to advise at preliminary hearing stage or within their appeal rulings, i.e. at point of submission of lawsuits or subsequent appeals, that in principle Supreme Court rulings must be adhered to? Are judges themselves deemed to be accountable to ensure all legal safety measures are adhered to in this manner, to ensure that SC rulings are not ignored or disrespected by (in this case) the Banks.

Ads:

Supreme Court has said in 2  ocassions now (  17/03/2016 and 16/03/2017)  so, it is Case Law since March 2017 that interests are to be paid since date of deposit into developers´account.

Banks need to submitt and recognise Supreme Court Case Law from date of existance of this, as Law itself, with same consequences as to not recognising or respecting Law.

Judges need to apply Law according to existing Case Law.  

Ads.   I can confirm that Maria’s team have achieved the judgement in our case, which includes the interest awarded from the date of deposit.

This judgement was not appealed by the bank in our case and, assuming it has been on many occasions in the past, the  Supreme Court rulings will have had the desired outcome?