First court ruling in favor of the minimum limit clauses.

The Provincial Court of Badajoz has declared a “minimum limit clause” included in a mortgage from Caja Extremadura (integrated in Liberbank) valid as it considers that there is no lack of transparency, that the clause is not unclear and that the information provided in the agreement is “enough and understandable”. The Court confirms the decision of the Mercantile Court of Badajoz, which dismissed the claim of the customer.

This decision is the first one with a favorable decision for a financial institution after the decision of the Supreme Court dated May 9th which obliged several institutions to eliminate these clauses as they were not transparent.

The decision stresses that, as established by the Supreme Court, the “minimum limit clause” has a contractual nature and is predrafted, as well as being conceived to be included in several agreements. “This is a clause whose knowledge is a requirement prior to the consent and is a necessary requirement when included in a contract as otherwise it would not oblige any of the parties”, the Court of Badajoz declares.

In this specific case, the Court determines that the clause is licit, as its transparency “has allowed the consumer to identify the clause that defines the main object of the agreement and the changeability of the interest rates”. The consumer was informed. Also, it stresses that in 2007 there was a modification of the interest rate of the loan for those payments to be done after August 4th. In this sense, it stresses that “due to this, it is possible to conclude that the borrower was informed of the probable behavior of the reference rate at least on a short term”.

As for the transparency, the Court declares that in this case the minimum limit clause was not included among other “confusing” clauses. The Court determines that it is a clause referred to the main object of the contract that cannot be defined as abusive as it is a clear clause that complied with the requirements of transparency.”

Finally it declares that this type of clause is licit as there is no lack of transparency as it is not obscure and there is enough and understandable information included. It has not been proved that the commercial representative of the financial institution gave an insufficient or unclear information before the signing of the mortgage in May.

Source: Expansion

36