This important judgment accepts the action of cessation brought up by a consumers association against the terms of the bank contracts of four of the major Spanish banks. The court establishes, mainly arguing on the basis of the rules against unfair terms (Law 26/1984 and its additional first Disposition, where the unfair terms are listed; the Directive 93/13/EC is also quoted several times), that eight clauses have to be declared void, mainly for producing an unjustified imbalance against the consumer. Besides, the court orders to apply the effects of this judgment to all the clients of the rest of the banks and financing entities of the country, although they are not the ones the OCU brought an action against in this case.
More precisely, according to the judgment, no bank nor financing entity will include in their contract clauses in order to:
1) Prevent the consumer from knowing what commissions he is going to be charged.
2) Force the consumer to go to courts other than the ones that are closer to his home address. The judgment quotes against jurisdiction clauses the following judgments of the Supreme Court: 14th April and 29th November 2000, 27th December 2001, 14th October and 22nd November 2002.
3) Force the consumer to take on all the costs involved in a judicial process, that is, not only the bills of his own solicitor, but also the ones of the bank, whatever is the outcome.
4) Transfer to the consumer the responsibility in the event that someone forges a cheque and cashes it, whatever the circumstances.
5) Avoid the responsibility due to the malfunction of an automatic cashier if it does not deliver the money asked for, although the receipt indicates that the transaction was made.
6) Reserve for the bank the decision to terminate a mortgage loan contract for any reason, or when the registration of the public deed for whatever reason is rejected.
7) Avoid the duty of the bank to communicate to the consumer the cession of a loan to a third party, because, according to the court, although this practice makes the credit market dynamic and facilitates securitisation, it cannot be done to the detriment of the protection of the consumers.
8) Avoid responsibility for damages caused by failures in the electronic processing of any transaction (electronic banking).
On the other hand, the judgment accepts the validity of other common clauses in these contracts, as the pre-constitution by the bank of documents as binding evidence, the advance termination of a loan due to the breach of any provision by the borrower or for the bad economic situation of the latter or the prohibition to rent or sell the property subject to the loan.