Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 23:02:43 GMT -5
However, "it forgets that the aforementioned ruling C-265/22 must not only be linked to the transparency control to which the clause relating to the IRPH Cajas rate must be subject, but it must also be linked to the abuse trial , since we cannot ignore that, in paragraph 69, it establishes that the content of the information contained in Circular 5/94 of the Bank of Spain is relevant, both for the purposes of the transparency trial and the abuse trial, mandate that the Provincial Court of Palma de Mallorca, Fifth Section, ignores.”
This lawyer highlights that the Court of Palma de Mallorca "continues to apply this novel and improvised criterion established by the Supreme Court, and followed by an immense majority of Spanish judges and courts, which implies the good faith of the professional by the fact that he uses an official Email Data rate usually used by public administrations in their protected housing financing programs, a criterion that has nothing to do with the concept of good faith established by the CJEU, and which is nothing more than the umpteenth improvisation of the Supreme Court to avoid nullity due to abuse of the IRPH clause.”
In his opinion, “this concept of good faith that our Supreme Court has improvised, according to which the use of an official type safeguards the good faith of the professional, for all cases, would lead us to the multi-currency clause being legal , in all cases. cases, given the official nature of the Japanese yen, its control by the Japanese Central Bank, and its implementation in the international currency market.
In his opinion, “ the application of the jurisprudence of the CJEU to the case of Palma de Mallorca should lead the judge to ask whether the professional could understand that the affected consumers, being informed of the operation of the calculation method of the IRPH Cajas type and of the potentially negative economic consequences derived from the use of APR rates. Furthermore, if, having been informed of the existence of a Circular from the Bank of Spain that warned financial entities that the simple use of IRPH rates meant placing the APR of the operation above the APR of the market, and that to avoid "This effect made it necessary to use a negative differential, they would have accepted the inclusion of said clause, in those terms, within the framework of free negotiation."
This lawyer highlights that the Court of Palma de Mallorca "continues to apply this novel and improvised criterion established by the Supreme Court, and followed by an immense majority of Spanish judges and courts, which implies the good faith of the professional by the fact that he uses an official Email Data rate usually used by public administrations in their protected housing financing programs, a criterion that has nothing to do with the concept of good faith established by the CJEU, and which is nothing more than the umpteenth improvisation of the Supreme Court to avoid nullity due to abuse of the IRPH clause.”
In his opinion, “this concept of good faith that our Supreme Court has improvised, according to which the use of an official type safeguards the good faith of the professional, for all cases, would lead us to the multi-currency clause being legal , in all cases. cases, given the official nature of the Japanese yen, its control by the Japanese Central Bank, and its implementation in the international currency market.
In his opinion, “ the application of the jurisprudence of the CJEU to the case of Palma de Mallorca should lead the judge to ask whether the professional could understand that the affected consumers, being informed of the operation of the calculation method of the IRPH Cajas type and of the potentially negative economic consequences derived from the use of APR rates. Furthermore, if, having been informed of the existence of a Circular from the Bank of Spain that warned financial entities that the simple use of IRPH rates meant placing the APR of the operation above the APR of the market, and that to avoid "This effect made it necessary to use a negative differential, they would have accepted the inclusion of said clause, in those terms, within the framework of free negotiation."