The president of the Supreme Court, Carlos Lesmes, has asked for the pardon on Thursday morning for the confusion around mortgages and has made a "call to trust " in justice. "We have not managed this well, without a doubt, unfortunately we have not managed it well, it has provoked an undue distrust in the high court and I can not help but feel it, we all feel it", he assured for, in a row, I continued to ask for "apologies to those citizens who have felt harmed in this deficient management".
In the day of open doors in the Supreme, Lesmes has revealed that he does not support the president's decision the Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Luis Díez-Picazo, to raise the case to full. The president of the high court has told that he spoke several times with Díez-Picazo last Thursday after the sentence that establishes that it is the bank, and not the client, who has to pay the tax of legal acts documented. In those conversations, the president of the room regretted having heard the resolution through the media.
Both spoke again on the phone on Friday. In a first conversation, Lesmes, according to his version, asked Díez-Picazo to elaborate a "clarifying note" on the scope of the sentence. A Díez-Picazo "did not think it was appropriate, he did not agree" and refused to do so. And, shortly after, he called Lesmes and told him that what he was going to do was broadcast a note announcing the suspension of all pending related remedies with the mortgage tax and the call for a plenary to review if the new criterion is maintained or rectified. That note, instead of clarifying what happened, has generated "confusion" in banks and citizens, Lesmes acknowledged.
The president of the high court has assured that, after the sentence, he did not receive "any call from any bank entity". The decision on who will pay the tax is now in the hands of the plenary session of the Contentious Chamber, which will meet on November 5. Lesmes has denied that in that session he will "revise" the new jurisprudence that it is the bank that pays this tribute. "That perception does not fit reality," he said. But then he also affirmed that the plenary is "sovereign" to decide what it considers.
The president of the Supreme Court has indicated that, in his opinion, the plenary session had to have met before the sentencing, to deliberate on the change of criteria, and not afterwards. "When there are modifications of jurisprudence it is normal that they are examined in plenary sessions, it is a habitual way of our work," he said. Despite disagreeing with Díez-Picazo's performance, Lesmes has assured that he will not ask for his resignation.