The Provincial Court of Zaragoza confirms that BBVA must refund its clients the costs of a mortgage from 2004. The bank failed to demonstrate that the borrowers were aware that the clause was abusive beforehand.
The Provincial Court of Zaragoza has dismissed BBVA's appeal and confirms that the bank must refund the borrowers the costs of notary, registration, management, and appraisal of a mortgage loan signed on 3 June 2004, along with interest and legal costs. The ruling from Section Four, as published by economistjurist.es, rejects the notion that clients were aware since 2017 that the clause was abusive.
The Zaragoza Court of Instance had declared in September 2024 the nullity of the fifth clause of the deed, which transferred those costs to the borrowers, and had ordered the entity to reimburse them. A subsequent order corrected the date of the contract, which is 3 June 2004 and not the date initially stated.
In the verbal trial, the bank conceded to the action of nullity but only appealed the action for reimbursement, which it considered time-barred. It argued that the ruling of the Supreme Court 705/2015, announced widely on 23 December, allowed clients to know their rights since 2017, thus the five-year period of the Civil Code would have elapsed.
The Court does not share that reasoning. It recalls that the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its ruling of 13 March 2025 (C-230/24), admits a distinction between the action of nullity, which does not expire, and that of restitution, which does have a time limit. According to the doctrine of the Supreme Court from 14 June 2024, the time limit begins with the finality of the ruling declaring the nullity, unless the lender proves that the specific consumer was aware of the abusiveness beforehand.
In this case, the claim was filed on 18 June 2024 and was accompanied by a prior claim from 22 January 2024, which is the first document in which the borrowers clearly express the abusiveness of the clause. For the Court, the bank did not demonstrate prior knowledge, so the time limit for prescription was not exhausted. It adds that it cannot be presumed that the consumer knows that their clause is equivalent to another already declared abusive by the Supreme Court.
The Court also rejects the argument of legal certainty that the bank invoked in its appeal. It cites a ruling from the Supreme Court, number 312, which considers it paradoxical that the entity, despite being bound by the collective cessation ruling for over a decade, does not assume all economic consequences towards its clients. Finally, it maintains the order for costs from the first instance, as the rule of the losing party cannot be excluded when the consumer wins the litigation.
You may also like
