The judgment of the mortgages charges against the judges who ruled in favor of the client - The Province

The judgment of the mortgages charges against the judges who ruled in favor of the client - The Province

The three sentences of the Plenary of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of theSupreme Courtthat establish that the client who pays the tax on documented legal acts (AJD) - imposed that applies to mortgages - charges against the five magistrates of one of the sections of this court thatinitially failed in favor of the borrower in this matter, who are criticized harshly"drastic jurisprudential turn" and its "judicial arbitrismo".

The resolutions, which exceed 180 pages each and have been released on Tuesday, evidencethe severe fracture in the breastof the court in this matter, since they seem to serve as an excuse forsettle accounts between the two factions in which the Chamber was dividedwhatfailed on November 6 by 15 votes against 13 in favorto annul the novel jurisprudence of the section specialized in tributes and return to the traditional jurisprudence, which frees the banking entities from the payment of the tribute.

Subsequently, aDecree-Law of the Government gave back to the matterand exempted the clients to the detriment of the banks, so in the end the criterion of the majority will be nothing, at least for the new mortgages that are constituted.

The fifteen magistrates who tipped the scales in favor of the banksthey criticize the initial resolutions because they acted without there having been a previous modification of the normative corpusapplicable or any other circumstance that could affect the resolution of the cases, "a drastic jurisprudential change with respect to what this Court had previously declared and for a long time in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, as well as regarding what was declared in the Chamber of the Civil thing, turn that had a wide social and juridical echo by the undoubted economic and social transcendence of the matter ".

Remember also the majority of the Chamber that the"Definitive determination of jurisprudence is, precisely, one of the basic purposes--if not the most - of the jurisdictional plenary sessions, "and accuse the signatories of the initial sentences of causing"judicial arbitrismo "with his unexpected decision.


Source link