The waiver does not prevent customer demand
In the placement of complex financial products to consumers, waiver, conversion or restructuring, do not prevent the claim.
In recent years, the colocación irregular de productos financieros complejos a minoristas ha dado lugar a todo tipo de actuaciones por parte de las entidades financieras. In some cases, to losses incurred by customers, se han ofrecido canjes o reestructuraciones, colocando al cliente otro producto que frecuentemente ha resultado igual o peor que el original.
No ofrece ninguna duda que el canje por acciones es nulo, when so it is the original contract, by the doctrine of the inefficacy chain or propagated, gathered by the Supreme Court Judgment 17 June 2010.
Also, novation is void, if it is too early, pursuant to the provisions of Article 1.208 the C.C.
The encadenación de swaps tampoco impide su declaración de nulidad cuando no concurre el requisito de conocimiento y cese de la causa de nulidad que exige el artículo 1.311 Civil Code, discretion of the Supreme Court Judgment 16 December 2015.
The Supreme Court has gone a step further and we made clear in its judgment of 12 February 2012, the customer written waiver does not preclude the claim and the subsequent declaration of invalidity.
La demandante tenía suscritos dos créditos hipotecarios. In September 2008, on the initiative of Caja Rural de Navarra (CRN), se firma un swap con el Banco Cooperativo Español.
In November 2008, CRN communicates to the customer who has to pay an amount for the swap and offers an early cancellation for more than amount 12.000 euros. In April 2009, the plaintiff files a complaint to the customer service of the financial institution, and in March 2009 a complaint to the appropriate department of the Basque Government. Finally, on April 2009, claims to the Bank of Spain.
Following these complaints, and a instancias de la entidad bancaria, a first document which is signed were paid 2.109 Customer euros and the case closed requested the Bank of Spain.
And on the same date, equally Bank initiative, se firma un documento de renuncia de acciones que indicaba literalmente:
"That I declare under this document, I have nothing to claim Caja Rural de Navarra or Spanish Cooperative Bank under the contract, which remains fully in force "
However, the client filed a complaint with the courts, demanding cancellation of the swap.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the application, valid considering the waiver agreement (6.2 C.C) and estoppel. The possible defect would have been validated.
El cliente recurrió el fallo y la Audiencia Provincial de San Sebastián descartó que el documento de renuncia impida la declaración de nulidad, estimating demand in Case 22 March 2012.
The financial institution filed an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement and appeal to the Supreme Court.
The High Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement on the grounds that the assessment of waiver is not appropriate for that channel.
As for the appeal, It is based on three reasons, they are dismissed.
Waiver of Rights
For the Board, "Assessment of waiver can not be done in isolation on a legal fact or act detached from the legal relationship that brings cause or reason".
It should take into account the overall relationship obligational.
the resignation, It should be personal, strict clear and unambiguous and in this case, not those conditions are satisfied.
This is not a waiver in the strict sense, but el cliente se limita a firmar un documento redactado por el banco, that accepts confidence in their manager, believing that it would solve the problem.
It is not considered that the waiver is clear, strong and unequivocal, as being a complex product, it is difficult, considering the customer profile, for understanding the true scope of the contract, to having made vitiated by errors.
Se descarta la existencia de “own actions” en aplicación de la doctrina de la sala, collection including the STS 15 January 2012.
"You can not sustain that the applicant created a reasonable expectation, to the bank, which would generate for the same confidence in a subsequent performance consistency by the applicant that ruled out any claim of product purchased ".
La demandante mantuvo una clara y reiterada oposición, dejando patentes sus desavenencias con la entidad bancaria por la colocación del producto.
For the Board, there is no confirmation of the validity of the contract under the terms required by Articles 1310 and 1311 the C.C. El cliente manifestó reiteradamente sus quejas al banco:
"The waiver signed by the applicant, a instancia de la entidad bancaria, also takes out the error about the complexity of the product and the realization of the adverse risks that may arise ".
Namely, for the purposes of Article 1311 C.C., the ground for invalidity exists and it has not ceased. Thus no confirmation.
Ultimately, se rechazan ambos recursos y se confirma la sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial que establece que el escrito de renuncia no impide la reclamación y anula el swap.
If you have any dispute with a financial institution, our recommendation is to express in writing. Such complaints can be very useful if you have to come to court.