Incripción indebida en registro de morosos

listado de morosos

Improper entry in a register of defaulters violates the right to honor


Las grandes compañías prestadoras de servicios generalmente incluyen en los registros de morosos al cliente que falla en un pago, regardless of the amount and credit history that has demonstrated.

Even it is given the case, como ocurre en la Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo Nº 24372016, of 01/09/2016, those records that include customer who has not paid an amount, actually, He had no obligation to take.

The facts underlying this judgment, which it is what concerns us in this comment, They were the following:

Elite Merchandising SLU entered into a contract mobile phone services and ADSL with Orange Espagne SA. In March 2015 , Elite Merchandising Manager SLU decided to carry the contracted services to the company Telecable. On that occasion, Orange invoice issued Espagne 2015/04 including, in addition to the price of services, the penalty for breach of permanence. Elite Merchandising SLU did not pay the amount of the penalty, because he felt that Orange Espagne SA had no right to collect it. On the occasion of such failure, Orange Espagne SA Merchandising SLU included in the files of delinquent Asnef and Bandexcug.

In response, Elite Merchandising interpuso demanda contra Orange Espagne SA solicitando que se declarara que su inclusión en dichos registros era indebida y suponía una intromisión ilegítima en su honor e intimidad porque no se había pactado en el contrato el pago de penalización alguna, y que Orange Espagne SA fuera condenada a indemnizarle con 12.000 € for moral damage.

La demanda fue estimada por el Juzgado de Primera Instancia Nº 10 Oviedo in its judgment of 07/04/2016, y contra ella interpuso appeal alegando dicha intromisión no era indebida ni ilegítima, because the payment of the penalty itself was contained in the contract.

The Provincial Court, in the judgment which is the subject of this comment, desestimó el recurso de apelación for the following reasons:

1. Porque la inclusión indebida en un fichero de morosos vulnera el derecho al honor de la persona cuyos datos son incluidos en el fichero (STS 284/2009, of 24 April [RJ 2009,3166], without requiring that the register has been consulted or not by third parties (no matter who ever lived or nondisclosure).

2. For inclusion in these files was defaulters, indeed, undue, because the only reference to a penalty for breach of commitment to stay is in the AGB, which they were neither signed by Elite Merchandising SLU or linked to the contract in any way, which determines that Elite Merchandising SLU had no obligation to pay any penalty.

3. Because once credited trespass, it is presumed always irrebuttable of injury, which will be assessed according to the circumstances of the case, the severity of the injury, dissemination or hearing environment in which interference has occurred, and the benefit obtained the causative (STS 18/02/2015).

Merece la pena indicar que el hecho de ser persona jurídica no supone obstáculo alguno para solicitar la declaración de ilegítima de una intromisión en su derecho al honor.

As for the justification of the amount of compensation, according to the STS 18/02/2015, se calcula a partir de los daños patrimoniales concretos (when the injured party had to take a greater interest in a loan agreement, for example) y difusos que haya provocado (which has been unable to access funding, for example) trespass, and daños derivados del desprestigio de la propia imagen profesional o personal del que sufrió la intromisión. In this case, including Elite Merchandising SLU prevented access external funding.

Ultimately, Orange Espagne SA should not have included Elite Merchandising SLU not meet penalty for breach of commitment to stay, and for a very simple and specific reason: Elite Merchandising had not consented, in any of the forms permitted by law, the establishment of such an obligation. As the same Provincial Court Judgment indicates the purpose of this comment, this type of action relating to the personal details of their defaulting debtors records to causes of defaults small amounts and not repeated constitute an abuse of dominant position, involving deviant behavior and contrary to good faith.

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