The Supreme Court declares the nullity of the minimum rate clauses when there is “a lack of transparency”.
The First Chamber of the Court has given its decision after meeting in a session on the partial acceptance of an appeal of cassation based on these mortgage clauses, as informed by Europa Press. The minimum rate of these mortgages implies that the client will always pay a minimum interest rate, apart from the value of Euribor.
If, for example, the client has taken out a mortgage with a variable interest rate of Euribor+2%, but has a minimum rate clause of 3%, he will never pay less than this percentage, even if the Euribor decreases below 1%.
The decision of the Supreme Court, nevertheless, has some nuances. The Court has clarified that its decision does not entail the return of the amounts that have been already paid by customers. The minimum rate clauses are only considered abusive if there is a lack of transparency when marketing the mortgage.