スペインの裁判所は、銀行の住宅ローンの最低金利制限条項は違法と判断
Adiós a las cláusulas suelo de las hipotecas
El Supremo condena a los bancos a quitar estos límites por poca transparencia
El BBVA elimina la condición en 425.000 préstamos tras una sentencia del Supremo
Esta entidad reducirá sus ingresos en unos 420 millones anuales
Cajamar modifica también sus créditos y el banco gallego NCG estudia qué hacer
Las cláusulas suelo, nulas si incumplen cualquier requisito de transparencia
Golpe del Tribunal Supremo a las clásulas suelo
DESCARGABLE Texto íntegro de la sentencia
Consulte toda la información sobre vivienda
Íñigo de Barrón Madrid 12 JUN 2013 - 22:08 CET
Farewell to ground clauses in mortgages
The Supreme condemns banks to remove these limits by low transparency
The BBVA eliminates the condition in 425,000 loans following a judgment of the Supreme
This entity will reduce its revenue in about 420 million annually
Cajamar also modified their loans and the bank studied do Galician NCG
The ground clauses, void if they violate any requirement of transparency
Justice Blow additional clauses to the ground
DOWNLOADABLE Full text of the judgment
See all the information on housing
Barron Inigo Madrid 12 JUN 2013 - 22:08 CET
The judges are complicating life for banks. The last sentences, both of Spain as European are forcing change their rules and their contracts, in many cases considered abusive. The final blow to a part of the industry, have received from the Supreme Court, who on Wednesday said in a statement that a car had already noted the May 9th floor clauses (the ceilings on mortgage interest to prevent reduce reached a limit even lower the Euribor) are invalid if its inclusion in the loan contract was not completely transparent. The immediate effect is that the ground clause shall cease to apply hundreds of thousands of mortgages.
moreThe ground clauses, void if they violate any requirement of transparencyDOWNLOADABLE Supreme Auto for clarification on ground clausesJustice Blow additional clauses to the groundDOWNLOADABLE Full text of the judgment
The court issued its judgment on May 9 after an appeal by Ausbanc. On Wednesday replied to the clarifications requested by the BBVA Cajamar Novagalicia and cooperative. These three entities had been convicted without explaining apply these provisions with sufficient transparency to their customers. The judgment declared void its provisions for six reasons such as lack of sufficient information, warnings about the comparative cost with other products, the relationship between floor and ceiling ...
The bank asked if they had to produce all these circumstances at a time or null if there was already some. The Supreme response was clear: there was only one, the contract was canceled.
The BBVA was waiting this clarification of the judges to take strong action: announced it will implement the provisions of the 425,000 mortgages floor with this condition, with effect from May 9. The soil medium is 2.8% applies. The Euribor is at 0.50%, a rate that adds 0.5 to a point, so that for many customers the measure will save between 1.8 and one point on the mortgage, great news for their customers.
An average savings of 82 euros per month
The bank estimated that with the current situation one-year Euribor implementing this measure will reduce revenue in about 35 million a month. If the calculation is annualized, something that is not accurate because it depends on the evolution of the index, the entity would enter 420 million less, a very high considering the decline in revenues caused by reduced credit. Considering the number of mortgages affected and the impact on the bank, a simple division shows that the average savings for mortgages affected is about 82 euros per month, 988 per year. Obviously, the impact is greater the lower the interest rate and vice versa.
The measure may also affect entities unconvicted
Cajamar also announced the removal of these clauses and lack of rule Novagalicia NCG Banco, an entity controlled by the state. Banking sources say it will be very hard not to follow in the footsteps of other convicted how difficult it will be to explain that some do and some do not. Novagalicia may revise contract by contract to determine which abuse exists. However, this decision also could cause a wave of lawsuits from customers, which would add to the difficult situation in the entity by substantial complaints from savers who invested in preferred.
Now the mystery is to know what will competitors who are not affected by the judgment. "Legally they are not required. However, there are other variables other than legal, such as commercial and reputational that banks carefully analyzed with ground provisions, "said a legal expert from a consultant who asked to remain anonymous.
In Spain there are around 1.7 million loans that cortapisa
In Spain there are about 1.7 million mortgages with ground provisions, according to data provided to the Senate in 2010. That's almost one in three mortgages.
What no one doubts is that from the commercial point of view it will be hard to justify these provisions to other entities, and in an industry where customer relationships have been stretched much by the crisis and the bailouts. Others also suggest that what the BBVA affect all its high market share. Banco Santander and La Caixa, the other two major Spanish banks, ground provisions did not apply to their mortgage.
No retroactive
The ruling is not retroactive, so it will not affect the payments already made. That is, banks do not return it overcharged customers in implementing some provisions that the Supreme now considered invalid. The president of the association of users of banks, insurance and Adicae, Manuel Browns, believes that the Supreme doctrine should also lay on ground clauses illegal reimbursements included in mortgage contracts and predicted potential lawsuits.
The decision has no retroactive effect on the amount paid by May
The car also indicates that soils are zero even if the customer is benefited "for a while" fall in the Euribor. This means that even if it were 100% Variable disguised within a fixed (to the ground because, if there had been some variation of interest) can be suppressed.
The Supreme adds that mere "formality devoid of effectiveness, such as reading the contract by the notary", can not replace the "perfect knowledge" of all terms of the contract, so that the consumer must decide whether to sign or not signing the mortgage contract. Another blow to the credibility of the bank.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿