Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 1:28:35 GMT -5
In his opinion, the IRPH is an illegal index that should be replaced by Euribor. “ The solution is not only judicial , but it would be necessary to undertake a legislative reform that replaces this index with another and at the same time compensates people who are paying more on their mortgages because they have IRPH. A double solution to IRPH For his part, José María Erausquin , partner of the Res Abogados firm, who has been fighting for more than a decade, together with his partner Maite Ortiz, to achieve the annulment of the IRPH, with several preliminary rulings that have been resolved by the CJEU, believes that the solution to this issue is twofold judicial and legislative.
In the judicial process, the solution is to control abuse taking into account the concept of good faith and imbalance that the CJEU has established , not the one that the Supreme Court Fax Lists has invented. Good faith would mean that the bank had explained the features of the IRPH well, always above the Euribor, that way it would have been known whether that consumer would have agreed to have IRPH or not. “Judicially, the criteria of good faith and imbalance of the CJEU must be applied and if the IRPH is applied it falls at a legal level. From a legislative point of view it must be withdrawn. The problem is why we changed it and what happens to the quantities that have been delivered to date .
The Government can withdraw it, but it cannot force the banks to return the money if the judges do not consider it null,” he points out. “As we have seen in these concentrations, the thousands of people affected are already very desperate. After the good news of the CJEU ruling, it seems that another one is coming to correct it, as has been the case of this ruling that we have just learned from the Balearic Provincial Court that endorses the Supreme Court's theses that we know without going into evaluating the latest ones. recommendations of the CJEU “. From this ruling from the Balearic Islands, this jurist believes that “ the judges wanted to demonstrate that they are the ones in charge .
In the judicial process, the solution is to control abuse taking into account the concept of good faith and imbalance that the CJEU has established , not the one that the Supreme Court Fax Lists has invented. Good faith would mean that the bank had explained the features of the IRPH well, always above the Euribor, that way it would have been known whether that consumer would have agreed to have IRPH or not. “Judicially, the criteria of good faith and imbalance of the CJEU must be applied and if the IRPH is applied it falls at a legal level. From a legislative point of view it must be withdrawn. The problem is why we changed it and what happens to the quantities that have been delivered to date .
The Government can withdraw it, but it cannot force the banks to return the money if the judges do not consider it null,” he points out. “As we have seen in these concentrations, the thousands of people affected are already very desperate. After the good news of the CJEU ruling, it seems that another one is coming to correct it, as has been the case of this ruling that we have just learned from the Balearic Provincial Court that endorses the Supreme Court's theses that we know without going into evaluating the latest ones. recommendations of the CJEU “. From this ruling from the Balearic Islands, this jurist believes that “ the judges wanted to demonstrate that they are the ones in charge .