Barclays mortgage multicurrency annulled by the Court of Madrid

hipoteca multidivisa

The Provincial Court of Madrid has declared the invalidity of the clauses of a multicurrency mortgage loan Sentence 18 May 2016.

The client contracted a multicurrency loan mortgage-backed securities for an initial value 704.465 Swiss francs, equivalentes a 425.633 euros in December 2007.

In view of the operation ruinous, filed lawsuit seeking the annulment of multicurrency mortgage He signed with Barclays Bank S.A., alegando que el consentimiento fue prestado por error y que la demandada actuó con abuso de derecho y dolo omisivo. Se pidió la nulidad absoluta del préstamo, with reciprocal recovery of benefits as provided for in Article 1.303 the C.Civil. To the client, no se explicaron los riesgos de la operación y no se tuvieron en cuenta sus circunstancias personales, como su desconocimiento sobre cuestiones financieras o que sufría una ceguera con discapacidad del 85%.

The Court of 1st Instance number 84 Madrid gave judgment on 15 December 2014 refusing the application contra Barclays Bank S.A. To the Judge, ni la Ley del Mercado de Valores ni la normativa MiFID son aplicables al caso. La iniciativa de la contratación partió del propio demandante y solicitó expresamente un préstamo en francos suizos. Also, el cliente había sido el encargado de realizar el marketing de un producto similar para el Banco Sabadell en el que había trabajado durante siete años. No hubo oferta vinculante ni se entregó folleto informativo, pero no era obligatorio al tratarse de un préstamo superior a 150.253 euros in accordance with the Order of 5 May 1994. La comercialización duró entre un mes y medio y dos meses, tiempo que se considera suficiente para sopesar la decisión. El cliente tuvo en su poder un borrador de la escritura. El banco recabó información sobre el cliente y le informó sobre los riesgos del producto. Ultimately, He had not been established error consent.

The client filed appeal He is alleging that the bank breached its duty of information, leading him to hire a product that had not agreed to meet the damages that could suffer. He said that his profile is not indicating the defendant, for his work in Banco Sabadell it was limited to performing administrative tasks.

The Chamber refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court 30 June 2015 noting that:

“The risks of this financial instrument exceed the préstamoshipotecarios own variable rate requested in euros. The risk of changes in the interest rate is added risk currency fluctuation. But, also, the risk of currency fluctuation does not affect only where the amount in euros of the periodic redemption fee, comprehensive principal and interest, can vary upwards if the chosen currency appreciates against the euro.

He adds:

“The Chamber considers that the “multicurrency mortgage” this is, while I loan, a financial instrument. This is, also, a derivative financial instrument because the quantification of the obligation of one party to the contract (payment of the repayment of the loan and capital calculation unamortized) It depends on the amount that reaches a different value, called underlying asset, which in this case it is a foreign currency. While derivative financial instrument related currencies, It is included in the scope of the Securities Market Act in accordance with the provisions of art. 2.2 of the Act . And it is a complex financial instrument under the provisions of art. 79.bis.8 of the Securities Market Act , in relation to art. 2.2 of that Act”.

Accordingly, the bank must meet the reporting obligations imposed by the LMV and MiFID.

However, a continuación se cita la STJUE de 3 December 2015 la que el Tribunal considera que un préstamo multidivisa no es un instrumento financiero,

In any case, para la Sala, It corresponds to the bank the burden of proof to be informed in a clear way, comprensible, adecuada y con antelación a la contratación del préstamo hipotecario multidivisa. Se trata de una consecuencia del deber de actuar con buena fe contenido en el artículo 7 del Código Civil y en los Principios de Derecho Europeo de Contratos en su art. 1:201. Este deber de negociar de buena fe exige valorar los conocimientos y experiencia financiera del cliente e informarle sobre los aspectos fundamentales del negocio y especialmente sobre sus riesgos (STS 20 January 2014).

The Chamber focuses on the issue by the channel of the condiciones generales de la contratación y su posible abusividad. Quote of the STJUE 30 April 2014 (Case C-23/13) para afirmar que la comprensibilidad no puede reducirse solamente al plano formal y gramatical sino que para superar el control de transparencia el consumidor debe entender las consecuencias económicas del contrato.

Moreover, attending the a consumer client, must be given clear information understandable and adapted to the circumstances of economic conditions and legal under contract (art. 60 TRLGDCU). Also, cuando nos encontramos con condiciones generales de la contratación deben ser claras concretas y sencillas, accessible and readable, and in good faith and fair balance between the parties (art. 80 TRLGDCU).

En este caso la Sección considera que contract wording is not sufficiently clear and simple so that the client could understand the economic and legal burden of multicurrency mechanism and its risks.

The fact that the initiative of hiring departed the client and to choose currency is the Swiss franc, It does not imply that it was aware of their risks.

No consta documentada ninguna simulación o ejemplos de las consecuencias del riesgo de fluctuación. La Sala recuerda (citing the STS de 12 January 2015) que los testimonios de los empleados del banco deben ser tomados en consideración con cautela pues son los propios obligados a facilitar la información y responsables de la omisión en caso de no haberla facilitado. Máxime cuando la apelada no propuso en interrogatorio del actor.

The disclaimer clauses by the bank they have no relevance to be preset by the entity itself and treated statements of science (will not). In this sense, cited by STS 12 January 2015.

La redacción de la escritura no garantiza en absoluto que el prestatario pueda conocer con sencillez la carga económica ni jurídica que supone el contrato.

Last, there is insufficient proof that the client had knowledge of the forex market.

Ultimately, this is considered essential error and excusable, and se declara la nulidad parcial del préstamo: the multicurrency clause is deemed not, operand euro loan tied to Euribor.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


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