El TJUE se pronuncia sobre el “dies a quo” en la reclamación de los gastos hipotecarios
Desde Europa se dicta una sentencia que tiene en cuenta cuestiones prejudiciales presentadas por el Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 50 de Barcelona. La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE), emitida el 25 de enero de 2024, aborda la cuestión del “dies a quo” en relación con los gastos hipotecarios y su prescripción. En la misma, se ha puesto de manifiesto que el plazo para un consumidor puede reclamar el carácter abusivo de una cláusula es imprescriptible y, no se iniciará hasta que el consumidor tenga conocimiento de que dicha cláusula es abusiva.
Se establece que el consumidor desconoce en todo momento la normativa europea y española en materia de consumo. Por todo ello, no se le puede exigir estar informados acerca de los gastos hipotecarios derivados del contrato de préstamo hipotecario. La obligación de informar al consumidor recae en las entidades bancarias. Aunque la jurisprudencia nacional consolidada sobre la nulidad de cláusulas similares puede ser una prueba de que el consumidor tenía conocimiento de la condición abusiva de la cláusula, no se puede presumir que el consumidor esté al tanto de esta jurisprudencia.
Se está de acuerdo en que, el paso previo a la judicialización, reside en la reclamación extrajudicial por parte del consumidor a la entidad bancaria correspondiente. Ante la omisión de respuesta y/o negativa por parte de la entidad bancaria es cuando se puede proceder a interponer una demanda, pidiendo la nulidad de las cláusulas y una reclamación de cantidad por las cantidades indebidamente cobradas con efecto retroactivo.
En resumen, el “dies a quo” en este contexto se refiere al momento en que el consumidor pudo razonablemente haber tenido conocimiento del carácter abusivo de la cláusula de gastos hipotecarios. Esto tiene implicaciones importantes para los consumidores que deseen reclamar la restitución de cantidades pagadas indebidamente por gastos hipotecarios. Desde Euriux se le ofrece una red de despachos de abogados en toda España si usted está afectado para poder reclamar los gastos hipotecarios, independientemente de la fecha que realizó la hipoteca de su inmueble. Puede contactar con nosotros en el teléfono 914261331 o correo electrónico miriam@euriux.com
Read More
Un Auto de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo da la razón a los servicios jurídicos de Euriux en asunto de daños de caza
El tema deriva de una sentencia inicial de los juzgados de Quintanar de la Orden, que es revocada por otra posterior de la Audiencia Provincial de Toledo y que ahora, confirma la Sala de lo Civil del TS en un Auto de fecha 10 de enero de 2024.
El asunto es de un gran interés jurídico en un asunto tan específico y concreto como es el de los daños producidos en los terrenos rústicos (sembrados y plantaciones), por culpa de los conejos de zonas acotadas.
La legislación aplicable parte del artículo 1.906 del Código Civil, que habla de que el propietario de una heredad de caza responderá del daño causado en fincas vecinas, cuando no haya hecho lo necesario para impedir su multiplicación. Además, existe legislación específica en materia de caza, como es el artículo 33 de la Ley 1/1970, de 4 de Abril, de Caza y el artículo 8.2 de la Ley 3/2015, de 5 de marzo de Caza de Castilla la Mancha (en este caso, y según concreta el FD 3º del Auto del TS arriba citado).
Pues bien, la relevancia del Auto en cuestión (que tiene la forma jurídica de Auto porque la providencia de puesta de manifiesto de causas de inadmisión se dictó antes de la entrada en vigor del Real Decreto Ley 5/2023, de 28 de junio), estriba en que aquellos terrenos que sufran daños producidos por conejos provenientes de un Coto, DEL QUE FORMEN PARTE ESOS MISMOS TERRENOS QUE HAN SUFRIDO LOS DAÑOS, … no están
acogidos por los preceptos legales arriba citados y, por ende, no pueden pedir, ni obtener, tales indemnizaciones por esos daños de conejos.
El TS confirma con su inadmisión a trámite la línea que marca la A.P. de Toledo, en cuanto que si la finca que ha sufrido los daños, por voluntad propia pretende obtener dos beneficios paralelos (cultivo y aprovechamiento secundario por caza perteneciendo a un Coto), no puede pretender beneficiarse del concepto jurídico de “fincas vecinas”, cuando en realidad es una de ellas, es parte de quien produce el daño, no hay ajeneidad posible.
Con esta resolución recién publicada del TS, se pone fin a una aparente discrepancia de líneas jurisprudenciales aparentemente divergentes y que alegó en su defensa la parte recurrente (SSTS 741/1987, 30.04.1991 y 719/2017) y que, siguiendo los postulados del letrado de Euriux en defensa de la parte recurrida, … ésa descarta dándonos la razón con costas en las tres instancias.
Esta resolución zanja así, insistimos, una duda que está siendo el día a día en cientos de sentencias de tribunales menores que siguen amparando reconocer daños en parcelas integradas en Cotos a los que se demanda y pretende condenar.
Acceso a la Sentencia pulsando aquí
Read More
La Seguridad Social indemniza con 1.800 euros a los afectados por el complemento de maternidad
El Tribunal Supremo ha fijado en 1.800 euros la indemnización a pagar a los hombres que hayan visto denegado el complemento por paternidad en la pensión de jubilación que les reconoció el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE.
La Sala de lo Social del Tribunal Supremo ha determinado, de esta forma, que los hombres que hayan sido objeto de discriminación por parte del INSS al denegarles el complemento de maternidad por aportación demográfica tienen derecho a recibir una indemnización. Esta decisión se basa en la sentencia de un caso de un hombre de León al que el Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) le denegó dicho complemento, y tiene como objetivo compensar los perjuicios sufridos por los solicitantes afectados.
La resolución judicial ha sido recibida con satisfacción por aquellos afectados, quienes ven reconocida y justificada su situación por el Tribunal Supremo. Sin embargo, es importante señalar que no todos podrán beneficiarse de esta sentencia, ya que solo aquellos hombres que hayan tenido que recurrir a la jurisdicción social para obtener el abono del complemento denegado tendrán derecho a la indemnización. La cantidad establecida para la indemnización es de 1.800 euros, considerada como una reparación completa del perjuicio sufrido.
De este modo, el Pleno del Tribunal Supremo ha afirmado el derecho de los hombres a recibir una indemnización del INSS como consecuencia de la vulneración del derecho fundamental a no ser discriminado, debido a la negación del complemento después de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea del 12 de diciembre de 2019, caso C-450/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1075. Esta negación se consideró discriminatoria por razón de sexo, según la regulación de la LGSS, y constituye una forma autónoma de discriminación vinculada a la actuación denegatoria de la entidad gestora.
Aquellas personas afectadas por este tipo de discriminación tienen la posibilidad de presentar su demanda ante la jurisdicción social para reclamar la indemnización establecida por el Tribunal Supremo
Read More
Sentencia pionera: cobrará el desempleo cuando la legislación no lo permitía
La Sala de lo Social del Tribunal Superior de Xustiza de Galicia (TSXG) ha emitido una sentencia pionera en España en la que ha declarado el derecho de una empleada del hogar a percibir las prestaciones de desempleo contributivo antes de la entrada en vigor del Real Decreto Ley 16/2022 para la mejora de las condiciones de trabajo y de Seguridad Social de las personas trabajadoras al servicio del hogar.
El alto tribunal gallego ha entendido que la demandante tiene derecho a las prestaciones, pese a que la legislación vigente en el momento de la solicitud no lo permitía, por aplicación de la perspectiva de género y de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea que provocó el cambio normativo en España.
Los magistrados han explicado en la resolución que la normativa española que excluía a las personas empleadas del hogar del acceso al subsidio de desempleo, vigente en el momento de los hechos, era “contraria a la normativa comunitaria”.En la resolución, acuerda que la actora, afiliada al Sistema Especial para Empleados del Hogar hasta el 4 de agosto de 2022, había cotizado 2.361 días en este régimen y dos días al Régimen General de la Seguridad Social.
Al solicitar su subsidio de desempleo, le fue denegado porque no estaba previsto para las personas empleadas del hogar, pues el Real Decreto Ley entró en vigor el 9 de septiembre de 2022.La Sala de lo Social incide en que el colectivo al que pertenece la demandante está “fuertemente feminizado, pues las mujeres representan el 95,53 % del total”.
El TSXG destaca que el nuevo régimen resuelve esa discriminación para las prestaciones producidas a partir de su entrada en vigor, “dejando en la misma e idéntica situación anterior a las eventuales prestaciones causadas con anterioridad”.Además, recalca que la perspectiva de género en la interpretación de la normativa y la obligación dimanada de la jurisprudencia del TJUE “obligan a amparar a las personas trabajadoras integradas en ese sistema especial cuando la pérdida de su empleo se haya producido con anterioridad al nuevo régimen y estén desprotegidas”.
Todo ello, según la sentencia, lleva a los jueces del TSXG a reconocer el derecho de la afectada a la prestación de desempleo, “pese a que no ha cotizado por ella debido a la imposibilidad legal, discriminatoria” que regía en el ese momento.“Es preciso tener en cuenta, de una parte, que la normativa española que excluía la cotización (y el desempleo) para las personas trabajadoras integradas en el Sistema Especial para Empleados del Hogar es contraria al derecho comunitario por discriminatorio, y que dicha situación no se ha solucionado con la reforma operada por el Real Decreto Ley 16/22 porque no resuelve el problema de los posibles beneficiarios anteriores, sino solamente de los hechos causantes posteriores a su entrada en vigor”.
La sentencia.Igualmente indica que “la interpretación de la normativa debe producirse en la forma más favorable al colectivo discriminado (el de las personas integradas en ese sistema especial), con perspectiva de género, porque es indiscutible el sesgo femenino de sus integrantes en su casi totalidad; y, además, en la aplicación e interpretación de las normas los juzgadores tenemos una obligación de hacerlo con perspectiva de género, al integrar un valor superior del ordenamiento jurídico”. La sentencia no es firme, pues contra ella cabe interponer recurso de casación.
Read More
A ruling allows the self-employed to deduct VAT on the costs of their principal residence
The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA) issued a ruling allowing a self-employed couple to deduct 50% of their household utility expenses, since they used half of the house as a professional office. The decision of the Andalusian court establishes jurisprudence on what, until now, were not considered deductible expenses and sets the basis for self-employed people to be able to deduct household expenses.
Experts indicate that it will be in the same percentage of use of the property for the development of the professional activity. According to Declarando, the online tax advice platform for the self-employed, article 95 of the VAT Law limits the right of the self-employed to deduct VAT on their expenses to be 100% related to the activity. The Treasury, say the advisors, interpreted that the expenses on electricity, water, electricity bills or, among others, internet, did not apply to 100% of the activity of the self-employed, so they could not deduct the VAT on these activities.
The self-employed couple demonstrated both that the invoices of their rental contract were in the name of the tenants, that is to say, of themselves, and that they used 50% of the property as work space, so they were able to deduct 50% of the expenses in supplies. There are housing expenses that, in a similar way to the sentence elaborated by the TSJA, can be deducted up to 30% of the housing expenses through the IRPF. That is to say, a self-employed person who uses 10% of his house for his professional activity, will be able to deduct 30% of the expenses generated by that space of the house (10%) that is used to work.
The experts at Declarando indicate that the ruling opens the door to the self-employed being able to deduct housing expenses. Although, they point out, "in the same percentage as that used for work". This means, they point out, that if the self-employed person dedicates 50% of his home to his professional activity and the VAT quota for electricity is 21 euros, you could deduct half of the VAT, about 11.55 euros.
Read More
Courts endorse the Second Chance law
Judges are already applying the Second Chance mechanism to many of those affected who have decided to go to court to resolve their debts.
A new resolution that "forgives" a Sevillian woman from the payment of important debts due to the Second Chance Law. The Second Section of the Commercial Court of Seville has exonerated a woman from Seville from the totality of her credits that she had contracted as guarantor of the operations of the family business, for an amount of more than 600,000 Euros. The wife, currently an employee, had guaranteed most of her husband's business operations and had her salary garnished.
Another of the sentences that have been known this week has forgiven an important debt to a businessman in Lleida.
The magistrate of the Court of First Instance No. 6 of Lleida, Eduardo M Enrech Larrea, has pardoned a debt of 1,376,041 euros to a businessman under the Second Chance Law. He was the administrator of a construction company that was directly affected by the bursting of the real estate bubble in 2008, which resulted in widespread non-payment to its customers.
How can I take advantage of the Second Chance?
In order to be eligible for the benefit of exoneration of unsatisfied liabilities, it is required to be a debtor in good faith and either submit to a payment plan or liquidate the estate and pay up to the extent of the debt, exonerating the rest of the debt up to the legal limits.
In addition, the debtor must not have been convicted of certain economic crimes; must not have been sanctioned by administrative resolution for very serious tax, social security or social order infractions or not have had a derivation of liability for such debts directed against it; must not have been declared bankrupt or have been declared bankrupt in previous years; as well as other issues that denote having acted in good faith.
At Euriux Abogados we solve your doubts. We have 52 law firms in Spain and 300 specialists with more than 25 years of experience in the legal sector. Find out more on our website or by calling us.
Read More
Insurance company convicted of closing a shop in the pandemic
A court in Siero has handed down the first ruling in Asturias forcing an insurer to compensate one of its clients for the loss of income resulting from the forced closure of a commercial establishment during the forced confinement of 2020, according to Ser Asturias.
The judge understands that the insurance company should have warned in advance that the policy excluded possible damages arising from a circumstance such as the state of alarm, and ordered it to compensate the business with 40,500 euros.
The payment for loss of profits must be paid by Banco Sabadell's insurer to an establishment located in the restaurant area of the Parque Principado shopping centre. It was one of many businesses affected by the forced closure dictated by the Spanish government under the state of alarm decreed in March 2020, following the declaration of the health emergency by COVID.
The usual conditions in this type of policy usually expressly cover losses resulting from a fire or flood, but the novelty is that this time the judge understands that the insurance company should have included a clause excluding such an event.
The jurisprudence seems to be on the claimant's side, but the way of appeal for the insurer is open and the criterion of the Provincial Court of Oviedo is still unknown. Only the Court of Girona has so far ruled in favour of the claimant in a similar case. Not all insurers have appealed against unfavourable rulings along these lines and therefore it can be said that, albeit cautiously, the door is open to the claims of thousands of small businessmen and self-employed people who have found themselves in the same situation.
Read More
What is the floor clause?
The floor clause does not appear by that name in the loan contract (it is recalled that it was applied to variable mortgages) for the purchase of a home or property. In the section on "interest" or "interest rates", or in the breakdown of the financial conditions, it is included under other headings: "Limits to the application of variable interest", "Limit to variability", "Variable interest rate", "Minimum interest rate", "Limitation to the interest rate", "tunnel", "minimum charge" or similar.
Another way to find out is by calculating the interest rate applied by the bank. If it exceeds the value of the Euribor plus the differential, which must be stated in the contract, it means that a floor clause has been applied to the mortgage.
How to claim floor clauses?
There are two ways to claim floor clauses: out of court and in court. Starting with the first, a formal complaint must be made to the bank that applied the floor clause. The bank has a period of up to three months to accept the claim and proceed to refund the money, although it can also offer an alternative such as reducing the outstanding capital of the mortgage or investing the money returned in savings products.
If the bank does not accept or does not reach an agreement, you have to go to court. The bank should be reported to the specialised court in the province of residence or to an ordinary court if the mortgage was applied for as a legal entity. A lawsuit can be filed by hiring a lawyer.
How long have floor clauses existed?
We have to go back to the 'brick boom'. During its outbreak, around 2007, the crisis officially began in Spain. To safeguard themselves, banks introduced floor clauses in mortgages to limit the fall in interest rates in variable-rate mortgage contracts. In this way, no matter how much the Euribor fell, they could ensure that they would continue to charge a profitable interest rate.
According to the Supreme Court, before 2004, 30% of mortgages already had a mortgage floor. However, it was in 2009, in the midst of the crisis, when they were applied to the maximum. Despite the sharp drop in the Euribor, thousands of people did not see any reduction in their monthly mortgage repayments as they should have, so a judicial process of judgments and claims began and continues today.
Read More
Floor Clause: claiming as soon as the mortgage is signed
The Provincial Court of Madrid has recognised a consumer's right to claim from a financial institution the amounts unduly charged for floor clauses from the time the mortgage was signed, and not only from the time the clauses were declared null and void. In a ruling dated 19 April, the Madrid High Court upheld an appeal by a customer of the Credifimo financial institution against a previous ruling by the 33rd Court of First Instance of Madrid.
The ruling allows those affected by floor clauses declared null and void to recover the amount paid in excess since the signing of the mortgage in 2007, despite having a final ruling with which they could recover what was unduly paid since May 2013, which is the retroactivity limit established by the Supreme Court.
The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) states that mortgage clauses considered abusive must be declared null and void, which means that the consumer has the right to be reimbursed the amounts unduly received by the bank as soon as the court declares the clause null and void. In Spain, the Supreme Court set 9 May 2013 as the deadline for claiming unduly collected amounts, without retroactive effect and regardless of the date on which the mortgage was signed.
Now, the Madrid court goes further and allows consumers to recover the amounts unduly charged from the time of signing the mortgage, which opens the door to thousands of claims from consumers who took out their loans before 2013. The ruling puts the effective judicial protection of those affected by the floor clause before res judicata, something that the consumer association Asufin describes as "very important and innovative, because it moves in the direction of consumer protection".
The Provincial Court judges Miguel Ángel Lombardía, Ramón Badiola and Lorenzo Vaquero emphasise that the time limitation imposed by the Supreme Court is tantamount to depriving consumers who signed a mortgage before that date "of the right to obtain full restitution of the amounts they have unduly paid to the bank".
And this only guarantees "limited protection" to those mortgaged before that date, making such protection "incomplete and insufficient and not an adequate and effective means of stopping the use of that clause", the judgment continues.
Read More
Single-parent family: 32 weeks for paternity leave
A court in Palma de Mallorca has recognised the right of a single-parent family to have an extra 16 weeks of maternity leave, up to 32 weeks in total. The events took place last Thursday, where the Contentious Administrative Court number 1 of Palma ruled that a single-parent family was entitled to 32 weeks of leave, a sum of the 16 weeks corresponding to what was previously known as maternity leave and the 16 weeks of paternity leave. This has "equalised rights with two-parent families", STEI Intersindical reported, according to Europa Press. The union has called for the court ruling not to be appealed and for legislation to be passed to prevent single-parent families "having to go through the ordeal of going to court" to obtain the 32 weeks of leave to care for newborn babies. This ruling comes after the request of a single parent teacher. Last February, a ruling was requested by the 2nd Contentious-Administrative Court of A Coruña, in response to a similar request from a civil servant, who was also granted the right to 32 weeks' leave to care for her child.
The 16th Social Court of Valencia also recognised the extension of the 16 weeks of leave in May last year for a single parent family, stating that a single parent cannot see the time required by law to care for a child reduced. The ruling found that "The denial of the right to such an extension/accumulation of both leaves in single-parent families deprives the child of that right and discriminates against the woman", whether she is a woman who has become a single parent or if the other parent is deceased. Precisely, the court pointed out that in the case of the mother's death, the law does provide for the other parent to accumulate the leave of both parents. The aim is for the single parent family to have the same rights as a two-parent family.
The High Court of Justice of the Basque Country already in 2020 recognised a nurse the opportunity to add the leave (then 8 weeks) for the second parent, arguing that being a single parent household "does not delimit a different bond of filiation determining the care and attention of the child, and its own rights". Along the same lines we also find other rulings issued by courts in Andalusia and Madrid. The Ministry of Social Rights, headed by Ione Belarra, has indicated that the Family Law that it intends to promote in the future will include the extension of leave up to 24 weeks. In the first quarter of this year alone, Social Security processed 123,076 birth and childcare benefits in Spain, 58,768 for the first parent, who is usually the mother, and 64,308 for the second. The highest number of benefits was in Madrid, followed by Catalonia and Andalusia.
Read More