«Giving the reason to those affected by the IRPH is a serious disorder», says Spain to the EU

«Giving the reason to those affected by the IRPH is a serious disorder», says Spain to the EU

The lawyer general of the European Court, whose opinion is usually decisive, will pronounce on June 24

  Was the IRPH another abusive clause in mortgages? It is the question to which the fifteen judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union will respond in the coming months. Luck is cast for banking. After dozens of briefs and an oral hearing held in Luxembourg this Monday that lasted more than three hours, on June 24 the general counsel of the CJEU will announce the conclusions on a benchmark index that many entities applied in full 'real estate drunkenness 'as an alternative to the Euribor - and that always evolved above it. Generally, your opinion marks the meaning of the sentence, which will be delayed until October or November.

At the moment the Spanish Supreme Court has positioned itself in favor of banking, while the European Commission has done so on behalf of those affected. Now, the community magistrates will clarify if there were non-transparent business practices such as those condemned by the Spanish land clauses.

  In the event that the IRPH ends up running the same fate, a new multimillion-dollar crack in the financial system would be opened because the injured would have to be compensated for the extra costs of their mortgages and, even, there is the option of a reimbursement of all the interests with the only obligation for the client to wipe only the capital. The hole could reach 44,000 million euros. CaixaBank and Kutxabank are the two entities most affected. The Basque bank has 1,400 million euros in loans linked to the IRPH distributed in 15,000 mortgages. His damage could be about 470 million.

That potential impact was at the base of the argument of the Kingdom of Spain. "Giving the reason to those affected would be an economic upheaval; the consequences would be very serious ": they would put into question the mortgages that were supported by this index, as well as" the good faith "of the entities that applied it.

Because the IRPH is legal, determined by the Bank of Spain, "an official index that is not developed by market operators, which makes it objective and transparent". Another thing is the differential applied (that 'plus x%'), which depended on the entities themselves. Having the paternity of a central bank, he remarked, was an endorsement. And the State attorney warned of the precedent that would mean "abusive and invalid index of a Member State." Even more so when the argument of those affected is that the information was insufficient and that "the alleged abuse" derives from events subsequent to the conclusion of the contract: the lowering of the Euribor from 2009.

Up to 21,000 euros
The basis of this case is a preliminary ruling submitted by a court in Barcelona. The affected reported the opacity of Bankia on the variables of this index (which is based on the average of mortgages made in the previous month and includes commissions and other expenses). In the letter it is estimated that the damage (if the Euribor had been applied) would move between 18,000 and 21,000 euros per loan.

The representative of Bankia denied before the judges of the Curia that the information was strangled to the clients (something that has been contradicting the European Commission). He argued that the differential has always been below that applied to the Euribor and that the IRPH was "never residual": it came to be present in 34% of mortgages in 2001.

In line with what was raised by the Kingdom of Spain, the lawyer of the banking entity did not hesitate to stress that "if the validity of the IRPH is questioned", the Union's economic model, the common market and the system are put at risk. financial. And all because the consumer does not suit you at any given time ».

On behalf of those affected, the Guipuzcoan lawyer José María Erauskin said that the problem with this index is that it was born "always" above the Euribor, because if that reference went up, so did the IRPH "because it raised the average of the loans ». But, on the other hand, the setbacks of the Euribor "did not have the same reflection because the IRPH was compensated with the increase in commissions, etc." And that circumstance should have warned those affected, he said.

Asked by one of the judges, rejected Erauskin the target consumer to be a benchmark for convenience, but "one that fluctuates independently of the parties, it is a matter of luck for both of us." And the IRPH, he concluded, is marked by the mortgage activity of the entities themselves.