The Supreme Court has submitted a preliminary ruling to the CJEU for the floor clauses. The Civil Chamber understands that the matter is “extremely complex” since it is a macro-demand behind which thousands of people are affected and that splashes a hundred banks. For this reason, the high court warns that it is a matter “extremely complex” and turns to Europe to obtain a common criterion of action.
Adicae’s lawsuit, which requests that the amounts unduly collected from the signing of the contract be claimed, represents for the high court a study of great magnitude in which it is convenient that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In this regard, the Civil Chamber explains in its order that, in addition to the scope of the action, it should be remembered that this collective action includes contracts entered into many years apart.
“If the abstract control must be carried out on thousands of predisposed clauses over a long period of time by dozens of different financial entities, subject to legislative changes in terms of its formulation and without the possibility of contrasting the pre-contractual information offered in each case to consumers, it is extremely complex to be able to conclude that an unequivocal transparency control can be carried out on similar clauses in the terms of Directive 93/13″ which is the one that protects consumers from abusive clauses.
CJEU criterion
Despite the contrary opinion of the Public Prosecutor and also of Adicae, the high court understands that it is necessary to consult Europe for its opinion on the floor clauses, taking into account that criminal actions have been extended to the point of being directed, at present, against a total of 101 entities that have marketed financial loans at the time that is now being investigated.
In addition, there is no resolution of the CJEU that has expressly indicated the interpretation of law of the Union that must be done to evaluate the pertinence of a collective action of this caliber and, in the interpretation of the Law of the Union there is “an elementary or obvious answer”, exposes the Supreme Court. “We do not find it justified to deny the presentation of preliminary questions”, he concludes.
Add Comment