Noticias de clausula suelo

Eu will force banks to return money from mortgages due to floor clauses

Setback to banking: exemption from payment of costs for banks for floor clauses is unconstitutional The Constitutional Court has declared partially unconstitutional the royal decree law on urgent measures for the protection of consumers of floor clauses approved in January 2017. It considers unconstitutional the exoneration of the payment of legal costs to banks that, once the judicial process was initiated, accepted the conditions of the mortgaged to recover the undue amounts for the famous floor clauses. In other words, in the end, the bank avoided paying the lawyer and solicitor of the affected mortgagor. 30/09/2021 A news item from: Hipotecas
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) opens the door for those affected by the floor clauses to recover the money paid in excess for this abusive clause if they signed an agreement to reduce or eliminate it without receiving any amount of the overcharged amounts and with the condition of renouncing to claim later by judicial means. In this way, Europe allows those affected to recover what was overpaid if the financial entity did not explain to the clients the consequences of signing this type of novations or agreements. 09/07/2020 A news item from: Hipotecas

New ruling on floor clauses

Since judgment no. 241/2013 handed down by the Supreme Court on May 9, there have been numerous rulings on floor clauses, all of them aimed at setting the transparency criteria.
The transparency control is understood to be passed when the information provided allows the consumer to perceive that it is a clause that defines the main object of the contract, that affects or may affect the content of his payment obligation and to have a real and reasonably complete knowledge of how it plays or may play in the economy of the contract[1]. In other words, in order to declare a floor clause transparent, the banking entity must provide the consumer with pre-contractual information that allows him to understand the economic and legal burden that the clause has on the contract.
International Technical Forum on Compliance – FTICThe Minister of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation appears at the…And the 2021 Nobel Prizes go to men…so farThe role of women in the 21st century legal profession: equality and… Five main challenges of the In-House Lawyer “At Tendam, the percentage of women in senior positions reaches 59% by 2020 “Thomson Reuters gives the floor to in-house lawyersFemale talent stands out in in-house law firmsThe practice of law within the Mutual sectorProjection of women in the future of the legal profession…

Entrevista a la abogada maite ortiz

No, no puede. Como persona jurídica (es decir, sociedad mercantil) su empresa no tiene el perfil de consumidor según la ley. Los consumidores o usuarios según la ley son las personas físicas que actúan con una finalidad ajena a su negocio, comercial…
Prácticamente todo el sector financiero está sometido a juicio ante el juez en lo que se refiere a las polémicas “cláusulas suelo”, que impidieron a numerosos hipotecados españoles o residentes en España beneficiarse de la fuerte pendiente de los tipos de interés experimentada desde finales de 2008.
Prácticamente todo el sector financiero será sometido a juicio ante el juez en lo que se refiere a las polémicas “cláusulas suelo”, que impidieron a numerosos hipotecados españoles o residentes en España beneficiarse de la fuerte pendiente de los tipos de interés experimentada…

Interview with manuel pardos in la noche en 24 horas.

-BANK: You can not claim because you subrogated in the mortgage of the developer -FALSE. In a judgment of November 24, 2017, the Supreme Court considered that the fact that the mortgage loan is not granted directly to the consumer, but that the consumer is subrogated in a loan previously granted to the developer who sells him the house, does not exempt the bank from its obligations to inform the consumer.
-BANK: You cannot claim because a notary was involved in the deed of the mortgage loan -FALSE. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of November 16, 2017 reminds that the mere intervention of the Notary does not release the bank from its information obligations.
-BANK: You cannot claim because as a bank employee you had knowledge of the product. -FALSE: Until now, some judges considered that this type of consumers, due to their training, should have had knowledge of the product they were contracting. However, a recent decision of the Supreme Court ruled that this profile is irrelevant if the information offered by the bank when signing was insufficient.