Post by rajiyakhatun406 on Feb 12, 2024 1:18:06 GMT -6
As is known, the interpretation issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) binds not only the court that formulated the preliminary question, which, in no case, can be separated from it or ignore it, but also the rest. of national courts dealing with an identical problem. Thus, without appearing alien to the circumstances and aware of the doctrine established by the brand new rulings of the CJEU of July on the possible abusive nature of the agreed resignations of the floor clause and of July on the distribution of mortgage expenses, the opening commission, the prescription and legal costs the Fourth Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas notified last week the first two judgments known in Spain that apply the recent doctrine established by the.
Court based in Luxembourg, regarding who must bear the mortgage expenses, and whether or not the application of the floor clause is legal. In accordance with the Ecuador Email List European doctrine, the Chamber specialized in credit matters ruled in favor of individual individuals in their litigation against the banking entities : they are the ones who have to assume the expenses derived from the loan (notary fees, property registrar's fee, appraisal) and the excesses of application of the floor clause, and the client only has to face the Tax on Property Transfers and Documented Legal Acts.
Court of First Instance No. 11 of Córdoba , specialized in abusive clauses, has ruled against the banking entity, BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL SA, declaring: null and void, as abusive, the floor clauses and the one relating to the assumption of expenses by the borrowing party; refrain from continuing to apply the indicated clauses; reimburse the actors for the amounts unduly charged for the application of the floor clause (416.06 euros) and for the assumption of expenses (1,181.86 euros); and finally, imposition of the procedural costs on the defendant. Prior to such ruling, the plaintiff filed an ordinary lawsuit requesting the nullity of the contractual clause for the payment of mortgage expenses borne by the borrower and the floor clause, and the ordering of the defendant to eliminate them from the mortgage contracts.
Court based in Luxembourg, regarding who must bear the mortgage expenses, and whether or not the application of the floor clause is legal. In accordance with the Ecuador Email List European doctrine, the Chamber specialized in credit matters ruled in favor of individual individuals in their litigation against the banking entities : they are the ones who have to assume the expenses derived from the loan (notary fees, property registrar's fee, appraisal) and the excesses of application of the floor clause, and the client only has to face the Tax on Property Transfers and Documented Legal Acts.
Court of First Instance No. 11 of Córdoba , specialized in abusive clauses, has ruled against the banking entity, BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL SA, declaring: null and void, as abusive, the floor clauses and the one relating to the assumption of expenses by the borrowing party; refrain from continuing to apply the indicated clauses; reimburse the actors for the amounts unduly charged for the application of the floor clause (416.06 euros) and for the assumption of expenses (1,181.86 euros); and finally, imposition of the procedural costs on the defendant. Prior to such ruling, the plaintiff filed an ordinary lawsuit requesting the nullity of the contractual clause for the payment of mortgage expenses borne by the borrower and the floor clause, and the ordering of the defendant to eliminate them from the mortgage contracts.