After the Supreme Court delayed its decision on today's macro-demand against 101 banks and savings bank for the floor clauses, the judicial journey of Adicae's macro-demand adds another chapter to the story.
The Supreme has extended the period of 10 days for parties to the Court of Justice of the European Union to raise issues in the ruling published Wednesday. So, until the doctrine has been established, there won't be any vote or sentence.
The three questions that the preliminary ruling request would address would be, in particular. The first is the compatibility between the abstract control that must take place in a collective action injunction and the detailed inspection, typical of transparency control of the information given to the consumer in each case on the legal or economic burden that the ground provision can produce>>.
This second request addresses the difficulty in identifying an average consumer when suing many financial entities. With the consequent and relevant differences between the possible groups affected consumers and the subjects, the second request is a response to the difficulties that have been observed.
The Supreme Court requests Europe to decide on the doctrine that governs the "possibility of adding a restorative act to a collective motion for cessation. This is one of the elements which distinguish the actions brought in the case from that that gave rise the STS 241/2013 of May 9>>.
Experts believe that this last judicial section will only ratify almost all resolutions published. It will also reactivate the ability to unblock the 225611 lawsuits, according the data from the General Council of the Judiciary. These are currently pending resolution. This excludes those who have not yet claimed the return of the between 2,000 to 3,000 euros per annum that must be paid to the affected, according Adicae data. The association estimates that around two million mortgage holders have yet to claim these clauses.