Plaintiffs and defendants entered into a foreign currency loan contract in August 2007, supported by a property mortgage. In particular, the contract included two terms. One clause stated that all processes and documentation related to the debtors’ debts would be validated by a public notary, and similarly, in case of foreclosure, the process would be validated by a public notary. The other clause stated that in the case that the mortgaged property suffered a reduction in value, enough to threaten the fulfilment of the contract, then the debtors will be obligated to supply the missing value to compensate. Furthermore, if the debtors fail to do this on their own volition, the lender may rely on this right even if the original loan has not yet expired.
These two terms were attacked by the plaintiffs in court, citing unfair contract terms. The Court of First Instance, found that the final part of the second clause (that the lender may exercise this clause even if the loan has not yet expired) was invalid, but otherwise ruled against the plaintiffs’ claim. This was appealed by the plaintiffs, citing numerous legal sources including the 93/13/EEC Directive.