The CJEU asks to verify whether the IRPH

sanzida963

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled this Thursday that it must be guaranteed that consumers with a mortgage referenced to the Mortgage Loan Reference Index (IRPH), much more expensive than the Euribor, received "sufficient information" when hiring it” about the calculation method and that this information was accessible. The decision leaves it to the Spanish courts to verify whether this is the case when they study the claims. The court indicates that a Bank of Spain circular from 1994 is key when making this assessment of information transparency. He explains that a negative differential had to be applied to the IRPH to equate it with the market interest rate.

This was not included in another 1990 circular explaining how the index worked. read also pink savior This negative differential, which would have made payments cheaper, is something that was not communicated Job Function Email Database to the consumer in the court case, a Santander mortgage that comes from the Palma de Mallorca court. And neither can an average consumer be required to know this on their own. Thus, the national judge will have to check whether an average consumer can be required to obtain that information himself. To defend itself, Santander maintains that the clause was negotiated individually and that the IRPH is an official and public index and, therefore, accessible to consumers.



The Spanish judges will also have to decide whether the mere reference in the minutes to the circular "is sufficient", since it presupposes an understanding of the consequences that is removed from the client environment. “A ruling is pronounced on the bank's obligation to inform the client of the economic impact of the IRPH in a clear and transparent manner. The banking entities have hidden behind the fact that all the information was published by the Bank of Spain and in the BOE, finally the CJUE makes it very clear that it is not enough," said Patricia Suárez, president of the Association of Financial Users (Asufin). ), which sees the ruling as “devastating against banks.