Bankinter clip confirmed invalid by the Provincial Court of Valencia

clip swap bankinter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Provincial Court of Valencia has confirmed the invalidity of a clip Bankinter Extra, signed by a limited company, in sentence 23 December 2013.

The company had signed a “Clip Bankinter Extra” in September 2008, offered as a product of coverage for loans that the company had with the bank. The settlements, except for a, were all negative for the client.

The contract states that "If the evolution of these interest rates is contrary to the expected or any special course occurs affecting markets, could reduce or even eliminate the economic benefit expected by the client in this contract ". But it says nothing that can lose a significant amount of money.

The bank did not perform the test of suitability or fitness.

As for the error in the consent of the complainant, the bank says that given enough information and that the contract is clear. Faced with the question of error estimation, Hearing indicates that "Has no prior test performance MiFID, Having reiterated this Court in various decisions that "it is not simply an administrative offense, no effect on the defendant vitiated consent, inasmuch as, besides being an inaccurate assessment-as, is known, validly given consent requires prior information to be of greater transparency and completeness in terms of the rating itself confer fit customer- this obviously requires strict compliance with the aforementioned obligation” (Sentence 17/0913; Pte. Sra. Andres).

"If it has not been duly complied with the rules alluded to above-MiFID- or reported with clarity and completeness of bad scenarios can conclude that the firm without proper understanding by the applicant only to him is attributable, since it is a basic logical principle in the assessment of such contractual relationships consent must be preceded by information and fulfillment of obligations by the bank, and only after these were credited, passes examined the performance of the other party (…)”.

Namely, for Hearing, omitting the suitability or appropriateness test is decisive for the annulment of the contract. Quote its judgment 6 March 2013 says "This directly affects infringement where such information as already mentioned in this Court in Case 7 and 14 May 2012 determines the invalidity of concerted business ".

The bank also argued that it was not necessary to perform the test by joining the swap other financial product (a credit) but the Court rejected this argument because neither the duration of contracts was the same, or offered to the customer at the time the mortgage loan was signed but subsequently.

Ultimately, annulment is confirmed swap “Clip Bankinter Extra 08” with the bank to pay costs.

Consult your case by clicking here.

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