The District Court annuls Santander num.1 contract Caixa Bank preference shares and condemns the box to return to the client 97.000 euros, plus legal interest from the filing of the application.
From magistrado D. José Arsuaga declares "inefficient for revocation" of a contract signed in August of the year 2000 and subsequent purchases of preferred shares held through October 2005, and contracts in January 2012 to effect the exchange of the preferred. In this exchange, the plaintiff obtained only 29.500 euros of 97.000 I had invested.

According to the judge the characteristics of preference shares do "seriously doubt that the preference shares are a good instrument as investment product suitable for minority customers". Goes on to say that are worth "random and maximum risk, greater even than afforded by common shares "and must be integrated into the category of complex values. Considers that in this particular case, information provided by the financial institution "has not met" the objective conditions of correction (clear information, need, sufficient and timely) neither subjective, which are those that cater to specific circumstances of the customer (experience, studies, prior contracting other complex financial products etc.). To attend both circumstances, Judge considers that there was lack of consent, by mistake. The bank was required to provide information on what is hired and the risks they incurred.

Against the ruling, be appealed to the Provincial. The bank has been ordered to pay costs.

Source: Europa Press



abogado laboral

We commented on this occasion the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Valencian Community 4 May 2012.

The assumption made is as follows: A worker, trying to force the company to dismiss and for this, starts performing tasks exaggeratedly slow, employing more than triple the normal time. Your attitude affects the company and other workers. The company, required to repeatedly and yet, continues to insist in his attitude. The company fired him and worker dismissal complaint. The labor court finds in favor of the company and the worker then appealed stands. Finally the Supreme Court finds in favor of the company.

The key points of the argument are as follows: It is stated as a fact that "During the last year of his tenure with the company (and especially in recent months) DLC that was intended to force the company to make the decision to dismiss, began to perform the tasks entrusted to him in a deliberately slow, invest in it more than three times what would be normal. His behavior affected the other workers as the work unfolded chain and they had to supplement their lack, transmitting many outrage and complaints, as did the direction of the company. "

The worker alleges in his appeal helplessness by vagueness of the charges, rejects argument that the letter of dismissal are expressed in detail the charges and dates, and comparative terms the result of his work with conducted by peers.

It is also alleged by the worker who has no prejudice to the company, what the Supreme Court responds that "Injury to the company is undeniable, not only from the standpoint of equity derived from the low yield, but also from the perspective of one's own work environment when one's peers of those who complain that reluctant attitude consciously made (…)”.

Finally, sentencing highlight two points: the importance of testing and concreteness in the letter of dismissal of the causes that motivate and support be harmed, the other workers.

==== If you liked the post, subscribe in the box on the left. Thanks


A judge has returned to give the customer reason for the preferred marketing.

In this case, the offender has been the CAM. The Court of First Instance and Instruction Segorbe (Castellon) cancel the sale of preferred shares to a pensioner and conviction to reimburse the primary CAM, of 23.000 euros plus statutory interest. The CAM also ordered to pay the costs.

The applicant relied on the existence of "mistake on consent". The judge, shows that the error in the consent was caused by "faulty" information that was provided to the client, "I did not know the true extent of the legal transaction concluded".

The reasoning of the judge we highlight two important points for the defense of similar cases of preferred:

1.- The error on the client: the bank failed in its legal obligation to inform the client, generating the same error serious enough to invalidate the contractual consent. If there is no consent, the contract is void, with each other to be refunded the services provided.

2.- The client had no speculative mood: is a consumer client, he simply wanted to get return on their savings. It is not a qualified investor or a company, that would be outside the scope of the General Law for the Defence of Consumers and Users.

If your situation is similar to that of the judgment, feel free to enforce their rights.



The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed the nullity of the dismissal and reinstatement on the job of an employee of the Caja Rural de Toledo who reported having signed in February 2010 down voluntarily under duress Company.

The Social Chamber of TS has rejected the appeal filed by the bank against a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, which quashed the dismissal DP July. by violating fundamental rights.

The employee filed a complaint in July DP for a crime of threats and coercion against six directors of Caja Rural de Toledo that the 15 February 2010 -claimed the worker- pressured him to sign their opt-out of the company where he worked from 1991.

According to the complainant, that day during your work day was called into an office where the six directors will “conminaron” downward to subscribe “without further explanation” and warned him that if he did would be involved “in legal proceedings with criminal liability”, without giving “at any time” opportunity to defend.

Also argued that, “Dam severe anxiety” due to fear of losing their jobs, because it has four young children, signed one of the documents made available to it “under complete duress” of company representatives “and in a state of mind in which he did not own” for their actions.

For his part, the Human Resources department of the company said that the meeting was held to clarify the “serious irregularities” committed by the employee in credit operations non-compliant.

According to the company, at that meeting was informed in July D.P. of which was to conduct an interim suspension of employment within one week in order to have a deeper understanding of the scope of the facts.

He also said that in the meeting requested “freely and voluntarily” voluntary resignation of the company.

The 3 March Mediation Service, Arbitration and Conciliation (SMAC) Toledo held a conciliation with the result “without agreement”.

Finally, after going to the ordinary courts, the 24 March 2011, the High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha rejected the appeal of the Caja Rural de Toledo to the judgment of the Labour Court number 2 Toledo and quashed the dismissal by “fundamental rights-infringing”.

TS Magistrates now corroborate the judgment, of Aurelio Toothless by rapporteur, condemn this decision and to the Rural “immediate reinstatement” the employee to his job in the same conditions and with the payment of all unpaid wages from the 15 February 2010.

Source: Efe


The loSocial Court No. 4 Alicante, been estimated from the dismissal of the Director General of the CAM.

The judgment, include the following paragraphs:

excessive use is made of ordinary employment relationship, pretending to be extended to senior management by the mere fact that the box has not formalized management contracts. The fact that no contracts have been entered into senior management has not ignored the establishment of improvements to the members of the Steering Committee and Territorial Directors by resolutions of the Board of Directors upon the recommendation of the Remuneration Committee (…).

Therefore, must be concluded that the employment of the plaintiff while he served as Deputy Director General, this is from the 16.02.01 and until his dismissal employment should qualify as special senior management, in accordance with Article 2.1 a) Part E. T. "

The conduct complained, that have been accredited, lead to the declaration of the origin of the dismissal of the plaintiff as the presentation of the accounts of the two years, directly attributable to the same, prevented the entity could know their true financial, supply him absolutely false knowledge of your financial situation caused intentionally, and prevented timely take decisions to reduce or mitigate the impact of the loss of the company, and led to intervention by the Bank of Spain, with the impact this has had on the image of the Institution, on customers who had deposits in it and in society in general, data since it is essential and can not forget, intervention has been necessary FROB initially will supply 3.000 million, plus an additional contribution 2.800 million, which have come largely from the public purse, thus their behavior is of, si cabe, greater severity.

Also, the conduct complained of by the entity do not qualify as simple errors, or as claimed by the plaintiff, of differences in the interpretation of accounting standards and applicable laws, Circular singularly 4/2004 Bank of Spain, because as stated above was perfectly aware of the mandatory compliance, in addition to the position occupied by the plaintiff and the responsibility attached to that is true, and can not be ignored, that the actions alleged in the plaintiff's letter occur in the context of an irregular legal and financial performance of the company, in the person of all its thirteen directors of the Management Committee, were not strangers to the decisions, and who knew and consisted conduct contrary to accounting regulations and labor discipline. "

margin management and responsibility assigned to the plaintiff as Director General and even as Deputy Director General, in previous period, within the scope of a financial institution i as the CAMmpide assimilate any other workers in the same. In this sense, as Director General had ultimate responsibility for the overall management of the Bank, and as Deputy Director General, also ample leeway, and therefore can not disclaim responsibility,

the assignment of an annuity based on complementary social, which not only clashes with the resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors until then, but involves unjust enrichment hardly justified their favor. In this sense, as discussed above, was established that the plaintiff along with the other members of the Steering Committee, unbeknownst to government bodies and therefore, without her control, allocated an additional benefit insured, according to some parameters than those which had been agreed in the various Remuneration Committees and approved by the Board of Directors. Therefore, benefit the plaintiff is without objective justification, a pension for retirement based on fixed remuneration, that was predetermined, far removed from the social arrangements, on a remuneration not only that did not belong at the time of grant, but did not meet criteria adopted by the majority of shareholders, and concealment that masked their fraudulent. In fact, of the evidence taken in the act of sight, singularly the witness of Sr. Vidal instance that deposed the plaintiff, became clear not only that irregularity, but had been backdated, most likely to avoid being known to the Bank Base, in fact it is clear from the emails sent between the Directors General of the Institution. And such conduct, alone, is deserving of the highest reproach and punishment against the applicant, especially if as has been expressed, to imposition of an expense, and its impact on the profit and loss account, of an Entity, finally, and due to many factors that this is not the venue to prosecute, but among those who are surely mismanagement of it by its top officials, has been called to a situation of lack of liquidity and solvency so serious that has necessitated the intervention by the Bank of Spain, with the logical prejudice that has led to the same, individuals who for years have placed their trust in her, and society in general. Therefore, the plaintiff's conduct is reprehensible in terms of labor law, advantage of their position as the Director General, and abusing the trust placed in it by the Institution, assigned a retirement benefit in order to ensure an amount perhaps with the course of events, in the future there would have corresponded; which is even more incomprehensible, reaching extreme gravity that fact in the current context of widespread economic crisis that is hurting our country.

F A L L O:

That completely rejecting the demand filed by Ms. MARTA front SAVINGS BANK AND MEDITERRANEAN CAM, S. A. I testify and declare from the dismissal of the plaintiff, validated declaring the termination of the contract of work that produced, without compensation or wages for processing. "



Set as default language
 Edit Translation

Subscribe to receive a book PDF

Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter

Subscribe me

* This field is required