The Supreme Court confirms BBVA's penalty for charging refund fees without proving a real service. The company paid them for over a decade without complaint.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that BBVA must refund €22,148.14, plus legal interest, to the company Hijos de Acaiñas Cabrera, S.L. for the refund fees on commercial effects it charged for years without proving an effective service to justify them.
The ruling from the Civil Chamber, with a report by Judge Rafael Sarazá Jimena, dismisses the bank's appeal against the resolution of the Provincial Court of Córdoba, which had already ordered the restitution, as reported by economistjurist.es.
The case dates back to the company's lawsuit, which sought the annulment of the fee due to lack of service and the return of the amounts paid. The Court of First Instance number 8 of Córdoba initially rejected the claim, considering it relevant that the company had maintained the discount contract for over ten years, paid high fees without objection, and waited more than four years since the last operation to go to court.
The Provincial Court overturned that decision. It did not annul the clause that provided for the fee, but condemned BBVA to refund what was charged because it had not demonstrated the existence of real services justifying the charges.
The Supreme Court does not declare that any refund fee clause is automatically null. What it establishes is that the contractual provision is not enough to charge it: to demand payment, there must be a real, differentiated, and accredited service. If this is not demonstrated, the charge lacks justification.
BBVA attempted to avoid the refund by invoking good faith, the doctrine of its own acts, unfair delay, and abuse of rights. It argued that the company had paid for eleven years, expanded its discount line, refinanced the debt with a mortgage loan, and remained silent for even longer. It maintained that this conduct had generated a legitimate trust that the fees would never be questioned.
"Mere passivity or tolerance over a prolonged period does not constitute unequivocal, conclusive, and indisputable conduct that allows for a future waiver of claims," the ruling states.
The court emphasizes that for the doctrine of its own acts to apply, it is not enough to have paid: it is necessary that the previous conduct objectively reveals a definitive position and has generated in the other party a legitimate trust that the affected party will act consistently. The subsequent refinancing or expansion of the discount line did not express a definitive intention to waive, but rather new manifestations of the same need for business financing.
The Chamber also highlights that it had not been proven that the company passed on the cost of the fees to its own clients. This circumstance distinguishes the case from another resolved in 2020, where it was considered relevant that the company had passed the charges to third parties. Here, that additional element was missing: only the payment and the passage of time existed.
The ruling also specifies a limit: the claim was exercised within the legal timeframe and BBVA did not allege its prescription. The decision does not authorize the indefinite recovery of any old fee, but prevents the bank from replacing the prescription with a vague invocation of silence, trust, or its own acts when the action can still be exercised.
The resolution is available in the download button accompanying the information published by the legal medium.
You may also like
