March 3, 2021

Consumer associations clamor against the sentence: «outrageous», «aberration» …

Consumer associations clamor against the sentence: «outrageous», «aberration» ...

Most consumer advocacy associations have harshly charged against the judgment of the Supreme Court on the payment of the tax on mortgages, after the high court has decided that, again, it must be the client who pays it.

The Supreme changes again: the client will pay the tax on mortgages

Thus, the Organization of Consumers and Users (OCU) has requested the immediate resignation of the president of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, Luis Díez-Picazo, for his "terrible management" of the Tax on Documented Legal Acts (AJD), which has concluded with a favorable judgment to the banks that qualifies as "embarrassing".

This was said by Enrique García, spokesman for the Agency, after learning that the Supreme Court has agreed today that it is the client who pays the AJD tax linked to the signing of a mortgage, which takes a step back in the recent doctrine , issued three weeks ago, which imposed on the bank the payment of this tax.

In the opinion of the OCU, it is an unprecedented decision that goes against the jurisprudence of the Court itself and that undermines the foundations of justice in Spain.

It also considers that it calls into question the independence of the judiciary that has been "bowed down by the economic interests of the bank" to the detriment of the millions of families mortgaged.

And after considering that affects the credibility of the Supreme, calls for the resignation of the President of the Third Chamber, Luis Díez-Picazo, for his "disastrous management" that "in record time has doubled the pulse of true justice."

The OCU hopes that, as happened in the case of the ground clause, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will rectify the ruling and asks that "now more than ever" the tax on Documented Legal Acts be eliminated, which penalizes to those who have to resort to a mortgage to buy a home

For its part, the consumer organization Facua Consumidores en Acción considers that the decision of the Supreme Court is an "absolute aberration" and denounces that the high court does "a great favor to the bankers".

"The decision of the Supreme Court seems to us an absolute aberration," Facua spokesperson Rubén Sánchez told EFE, adding that "it does not surprise us at all, since it was one of the possibilities that we considered with the highest level of probability" .

Sanchez said that with this decision the Supreme Court "does a great favor to the bankers."

For Facua, the Supreme Court has acted "in the same way" as in the case of the floor clause.

"We have taken a decision that seems simply political, unfair to the judiciary, a decision that involves saving the bank from paying billions of euros, in addition to the aberrantness of rectifying a sentence of the Supreme Court itself that was absolutely clear , which left no room for doubt and had no loopholes regarding the possible interpretation, "said Sanchez.

Also the spokesperson of the Platform of People Affected by the Mortgage (PAH), Lucia Delgado, has today called "outrageous" the rectification of the Supreme Court, which has accused of pleading the interests and the "pressure of the financial and real estate lobby" .

Delgado has considered that this change of criteria in the TS is a "reflection that Spanish justice is contaminated by real estate and financial pressure groups."

"It can not be that consumers are not taken into account and therefore the Spanish justice must be rethought, since the institutions should watch over the citizens and not the pressure groups", added the PAH spokeswoman.

From the web Claimant, they assure that, "a law that generates so many doubts in the maximum interpreters of the law is not a good law and a Chamber that decides with so many leaks does not seem the best way to demonstrate and guarantee its independence".

In the words of the Legal Director of, "the worst possible scenario for the mortgaged has been confirmed. It is a tremendously damaging decision for mortgage clients. The High Court turns its back on the borrowers, forcing them to assume the payment of a tax that, according to the autonomous community, amounts between 0.5% and 1.5% of the amount of the mortgage liability. Despite this, consumers can continue claiming in civil courts the abuse of the mortgage expense clause, including the Tax on Documented Legal Acts, supporting their claim in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union that have declared that the The effects of abuse can not be moderated or integrated. The bank that imposes an abusive clause on the consumer that is declared null can not benefit from it, the nullity has a dissuasive effect and involves replenishing the consumer in the situation in which he would be if the clause does not exist, restoring the entire amount paid in compliance with it. "

The legal head of the online legal services company explains that "you do not have to throw in the towel. Not everything is lost with respect to the taxpayer of the AJD tax. There remains European justice, where one must inevitably go, by filing a preliminary ruling, to resolve this legal issue. Prejudicial question that we have been proposing until now in and that we will continue to formulate to safeguard the interests of consumers until there is a definitive pronouncement. We hope that it will have the same final result as in other matters brought before the CJEU, as in the case of the ground clauses, where this court already contradicted the Spanish Supreme Court. "

The Minister of Labor, Magdalena Valerio, said that "we must respect" the judicial decisions, after knowing that the Supreme Court (TS) has decided that it is the client and not the bank that has to pay the tax on mortgages.

In the halls of the Senate, once the decision of the Supreme Court is known, Valerio has referred very briefly to the criterion established by the high court regarding the mortgage tax, simply to remember the obligation to respect it.

After two days of deliberations, the plenary of the administrative litigation room has decided, by 15 votes to 13, to reject the appeals raised and to recover the previous doctrine of October, so that the mortgagee assumes the fee.

At the same time, associations of magistrates, such as lAssociation of Judges and Judges for Democracy (JJpD) believes that the Supreme Court should have "powerful reasons" to "contradict what the judges say in tax law" with their decision on mortgages and considers that the damage done to Justice is irreparable.

"If it had been managed well from the beginning these expectations would not have been generated in the citizens, and now this frustration", The spokesperson of this association, Ignacio González Vega, has indicated to Efe, after the Supreme Court has agreed that it is the client who pays the Tax on Documented Legal Acts (AJD) linked to the signing of a mortgage.

JJPD predicts, however, that there is still "a long way to go" and that consumers will turn to European justice.

While waiting to know and study the arguments put forward by the Supreme Court, insists the spokesman, it is hoped that they are "sufficiently convincing to refute the arguments of the specialists."

The association has already requested the resignation of the president of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, Luis Díez-Picazo, for his "disastrous management" of the case when addressing this issue in full the day after the judgment was known in which it was established that it was the banks that had to assume the tax.

Consulted by Efe, the majority Professional Association of the Magistracy (APM) has preferred not to pronounce itself until not knowing in detail the legal bases of the decision of the Supreme Court.


Source link