Bankinter exchange canceled again in the Supreme,es

bankinter

El Tribunal Supremo ha confirmado la nulidad de un contrato de “Intercambio” Bankinter.

Consult your case now

It is the third occasion on which our High Court decides on contracts,,es,"Exchange rates / fees" of Bankinter,,es,On all three occasions,,es,It has been estimated customer demand and sentenced to the bank,,es,After publication of this entry,,es,It has fallen another judgment dated,,es,conviction for the bank,,es,customers concluded in November,,es,a mortgage with Bankinter S.A,,gl,contract "Exchange rates / fees",,es,for a period of five years,,es,initiating its effects,,es,months later,,es,and ending,,es,There was a positive first settlement and the rest were negative for customers,,es,yielding a final balance of 8.223 €,,es,Given the damage suffered,,es,customers lawsuit filed,,es “Intercambio tipos/cuotas” de Bankinter. En las tres ocasiones (Case 15 November 2012, 30 December 2015 and 9 June 2017) se ha estimado la demanda de los clientes y condenado al banco. Posteriormente a la publicación de esta entrada, ha recaído otra sentencia de fecha 14 June 2017 condenatoria para el banco.

In this case, los clientes concertaron en noviembre de 2005 un préstamo hipotecario con Bankinter S.A.

The 26 October 2006 celebraron un contrato de “Intercambio de tipos/cuotas” por un periodo de cinco años, iniciando sus efectos 13 meses más tarde, the 15 November 2007 y finalizando el 15 November 2012. Se produjo una primera liquidación positiva y el resto fueron negativas para los clientes, arrojando un saldo final de 8.223€.

Ante los perjuicios sufridos, los clientes presentaron demanda el 29 December 2012 requesting nullity of the contract for breach of peremptory norms and error on consent,,es,The Court of First Instance No.,,es,Madrid No sentence handed down,,es,euros to customers,,es,Bankinter filed an appeal and,,es,18th Section of the Provincial Court of Madrid as estimated in judgment No.,,es,The Court held that the limitation period was set from the first installment turned not from ending benefits,,es,in his opinion the contract was simple and it was logical the existence of a cancellation charge,,es,Customers filed,,es,mainly for the following reasons,,es,The term,,es,CC is prescribed according to the SSTS,,es.

El Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.º 99 de Madrid dictó sentencia n.º 43/2014 Date 3 March , estimating demand y ordenando la devolución de 8.223 euros a los clientes.

Bankinter presentó recurso de apelación y la sección 18.ª de la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid lo estimó en sentencia n.º 317/2014 Date 14 October. La Audiencia entendió que el plazo de caducidad empezaba a contar desde que se giró la primera cuota y no desde que finalizan las prestaciones. Also, a su juicio el contrato era sencillo y era lógica la existencia de un coste de cancelación.

Los clientes interpusieron appeal to the Supreme Court fundamentalmente por los siguientes motivos:

1.- El plazo del 1301 CC es de prescripción según las SSTS de 27 February 1997 and 1 February 2001.

2.- Infringement of the doctrine on the term of revocation or cancellation regarding the term,,es,CC starts once consummated the contract,,es,when they have completed all benefits relating thereto,,es,Violation of the doctrine of absolute nullity ex Article,,es,DC any act contrary to a mandatory or prohibitory rule,,es,even if it sanctioned by an administrative rule,,es,The Supreme Court takes the opportunity to rule on the,,es,term action for annulment,,es,Exercise period of the action for annulment,,es,Given the doubts,,es,the High Court begins its reasoning making it clear the following,,es,Undoubtedly, within four years the art refers,,es,CC to achieve the refund requested,,es 4 Item years 1301 CC se inicia una vez consumado el contrato, namely, cuando han finalizado todas las prestaciones relativas al mismo.

3.- Infracción de la doctrina sobre nulidad absoluta ex artículo 6.3 CC de todo acto contrario a una norma imperativa o prohibitiva, aunque esté sancionada por una norma administrativa.

El Tribunal Supremo aprovecha la ocasión para pronunciarse sobre el plazo de la acción de nulidad:

Plazo de ejercicio de la acción de nulidad

Ante las dudas, el Alto Tribunal inicia su razonamiento dejando bien claro lo siguiente:

2.- Es indudable que el plazo de cuatro años a que se refiere el art. 1303 CC para lograr la restitución solicitada by claimants and resulting from the invalidity of the contract relates to the consummation of the contract and not the,,es,time of,,es,celebration,,es,As for the date of completion of the contract,,es,It can not be fixed before,,es,the customer may have become aware of the existence of such error or fraud,,es,Then add,,es,The same final solution is reached,,es,as he did the lower court decision and holds the,,es,appellant in the second plea,,es,it is accepted,,pt,if the moment of consummation is identified,,es,contract from which are computed four years,,es,with the time of complete fulfillment of benefits,,es,by the date specified in the contract,,es,It took place,,es,The action,,es,It was exercised within the period prescribed by Article,,es momento de su celebración.

Y en cuanto a la fecha de consumación del contrato, indicates:

“(….) the consummation of the contract, for the purposes of determining the starting time of the exercise period of the action for annulment of the contract by error or fraud, no puede quedar fijada antes de que el cliente haya podido tener conocimiento de la existencia de dicho error o dolo.

A continuación añade:

A la misma solución final se llega, otherwise, como hizo la sentencia de primera instancia y sostiene el recurrente en el segundo motivo del recurso, que se admite, si se identifica el momento de consumación del contrato a partir del cual se computan los cuatro años, as provided for in Article. 1303 CC , con el momento del cumplimiento completo de las prestaciones, as, en el caso concreto, según la fecha prevista en el contrato, tuvo lugar el 15 November 2012. La acción, ultimately, se ejerció dentro del plazo previsto por el art. 1301 CC .

So there being no expiration,,es,the judgment of the Court marries and comes to solve the case,,es,"Exchanges rates / fees" are a,,es,and marketing requires special reporting duties,,es,Even before incorporation into our domestic law of MiFID by Law,,es,legislation,,es,mainly RD,,pt,and Annex,,es,He is forcing financial institutions to,,es,adequately informed about the risks of these products and to learn about the financial situation and investment objectives of customers,,es,"The financial institution failed to meet its legal obligations of information and thus misled the customer about an essential end,,es, se casa la sentencia de la Audiencia y se entra a resolver el caso.

For the Board, los “Intercambios tipos/cuotas” son un complex financial product, y su comercialización exige unos especiales deberes de información. Ya antes de la incorporación a nuestro Derecho interno de la normativa MiFID por la Ley 47/2007 of 19 December, la legislación (principalmente RD 629/1993 y su Anexo) obligaba a las entidades financieras a informar adecuadamente sobre los riesgos de este tipo de productos y a informarse sobre la situación financiera y los objetivos de inversión de los clientes.

From the evidence examined is concluded that:

“la entidad financiera incumplió sus obligaciones legales de información y ello indujo a error al cliente sobre un extremo esencial: the true nature of the product and its risks in case of lowering interest rates ",,es,The entity,,es,"Massively marketed product,,es,phoning home customers to offer it as a hedge against rising rates,,gl,Commercial advertising by the entity referred to the operation of the product as a safe,,es,Contract clauses are not sufficient to,,es,"Alone reading the plaintiffs could have clients understand or product performance,,es,In this sense reminds us that the room has declared that,,es,a mere reading of the document is inadequate and is precise activity,,es.

La entidad “comercializó masivamente el producto, llamando por teléfono a casa de los clientes para ofrecérselo como una cobertura frente a la subida de tipos (….)”.

La publicidad comercial realizada por la entidad hacía referencia al funcionamiento del producto como un seguro.

Las cláusulas del contrato no son suficientes para que “por su sola lectura los clientes demandantes hubieran podido comprender ni el funcionamiento del producto (….)”. En este sentido nos recuerda que la sala ha declarado que «[the]a mera lectura del documento resulta insuficiente y es precisa una actividad del bank to clearly explain how the assessments are made and the specific risks that could,,es,incurred by the customer,,es,as are those that then upgraded with the settlement disproportionately,,es,negative ',,es,It stresses that in the particular conditions expressed that both the origination fee and the settlement were "0.00",,es,Failure by the bank of its information duties determined that the error is excusable and presumed existence,,es,bank's claim that had occurred confirmation of the contract for payment of the negative settlement is rejected,,es,bringing up the doctrine contained in the judgments,,es incurrir el cliente, como son los que luego se actualizaron con las liquidaciones desproporcionadamente negativas» (sentences 689/2015, of 16 December , 579/2016, of 30 September , inter).

Se subraya que en las condiciones particulares se expresaba que tanto la comisión de apertura como la de liquidación eran de “0.00”.

El incumplimiento por parte del banco de sus deberes de información determinan que el error sea excusable y que se presuma su existencia.

Se rechaza la alegación del banco de que se hubiese producido la confirmación del contrato por el pago de las liquidaciones negativas, trayendo a colación la doctrina contenidas en las sentencias 9/2016, of 3 February and 503/2016, of 19 July :

"As we said in those judgments, As a rule, or the perception of positive settlements, or payments of negative balances, or early termination of the contract, or even chaining several contracts, convalidantes can be considered acts of genetically business vitiated by error in the consent, since they do not constitute acts of tacit unequivocal will of validation or confirmation of the contract, in the sense of creating, define, pin up, Change, extinguish or clarify no doubt that confirmatory situation.

"Further, there excusable error and disabling contract, It can not be considered that the appellant had remedied the defect of consent by confirming the business with their own acts, for the simple reason that a binding act itself which derives a subsequent act incompatible, It requires a full knowledge of the facts when setting a legal status (….)”

Ultimately, the judgment of the first instance is confirmed, is declared nullity of contract "Exchange rates / fees" Bankinter,,es,and restitution of the balance paid for their cause is ordered to customers,,es,Compensation for lack of information in subordinated debentures,,es,Caixabank responsible for structured bonds Bankpyme,,es,Nullity of clause soil bank employees,,es,With the draft is not enough,,es,restrictive clauses in property insurance,,es y se ordena la restitución del saldo pagado por su causa a los clientes.

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