A ruling of the Court of First Instance number 6 of Oviedo has condemned Bankinter to recalculate in euros the amortization table of a mortgage loan subscribed in Japanese yen for lack of information to the client of the risks involved.
The court ruling, to which Efe has had access, thus estimates the lawsuit filed by A.A.G, against the entity, of which he was a client since 1996, and has annulled the clauses of the opening and exchange fees.
The plaintiff, A.A.G., represented by attorney Antonio Cifuentes, decided to sign a mortgage loan agreement with the entity in June 2008 to cover the part of the floor he was supposed to give his ex-wife after his divorce.
At the bank, they advised him to use the multi-currency modality because, in this way, he would pay less interest and interest.
The contract was signed for a duration of 25 years and, when the client asked about the possible risks involved, the entity replied that if he did not plan to sell the apartment in the short or medium term, it would not cause any problems.
The loan was formalized at 210,939 Swiss francs, later referenced to Japanese yen, to be paid in 300 monthly installments.
A double system was established for the accrual and calculation of interest, one in foreign currencies, with the Libor (London Interbank Offerd Rate) as the reference rate, interbank market interest rate in the London market increased by 1 point, and another in euros, established in the Euribor plus 0.50 percentage points.
The judge understands that there is no proof that the client received information and negotiated the content of the multi-currency option or that there are accounting explanations for the operation of the stipulation, which was essential for possible risks.
The signature of the deed was made before the notary chosen by the entity and in the two meetings that the client held prior to the signing, no document was delivered, not even the deed, according to the ruling.
The absence of both documents and the non-existent accreditation of the fulfillment of their duty of transparency by the entity determine the existence of a "flagrant deficit of information that can not be understood to be replaced, in any way, by the reading of the deed by the notary authorizing, "says the resolution.
The ruling implies that the disputed clauses do not go beyond the transparency control because the plaintiff did not receive adequate information about the nature of the risks associated with the multi-currency clauses or about the serious consequences associated with the materialization of such risks.