Devolución de la cláusula suelo si , pero con limitaciones

The latest news on the application of the latest European case law on soil clause is not encouraging, as recently the Supreme Court has decided that it will not review the judgments given before the decision of the European Court to consider it "res judicata" and therefore in legal certainty and can not reopen an already final judgment. This decision gives a respite to the bank, which has had to implement in record time the extrajudicial claim process to curb the flow of claims for the cancellation and recovery of returns to customers.

This means good last news for entities had refused to apply the full retroactivity, although the high court has not ruled in the case of class action lawsuits, which could open the closure to some scholars to re-claim, this time on behalf of the client . Other entities have opted instead to repay all of the overcharged by the bank in case of application of the clause floor without having to claim in court.

Therefore, for practical purposes, if you do not have a final judgment against the bank you have sued, the full retroactivity will be applied and the floor of your mortgage will be annulled and the amounts overpaid will be refunded since the floor was applied. If, on the other hand, it has a ruling, it will be more difficult to claim the aforementioned before May 2013 and above if it was not in the context of a class action suit.

●         Knowledge of the clause: Could you miss the opportunity to claim your latest news clause floor if you were knowledgeable about its operation?

In March the Supreme Court also qualified that if the client was aware of the clause because it was negotiated individually with him and this could be proved, the clause was neither abusive nor opaque and therefore not void. Some entities have also refused to deal with the claims of their former employees, consider

They are important for the High Court two things, that the clause had been negotiated on the one hand and on the other that it was not masked in the mortgaged but was "highlighted in bold". Likewise the notary warned the consumers in the elevation to public.

The Supreme Court therefore establishes the minimum requirements of opacity and lack of transparency when considering the application of the recent judgment of the European High Court, which provides a more precise and detailed framework of favorable or unfavorable scenarios for a judicial claim, which, in addition to the requirements of Royal Decree Law, create some filters before taking into consideration when launching without weighing reckless legal claims.

Rosón Legal , Specialists in banking and stock exchange law. More information in

clause soil latest news,