The bank that had been condemned for abusive clauses will have to pay for the legal costs of the whole process
The First Chamber of the Supreme Court, in plenary session, has made its first statement on the allocation of costs of the previous proceedings, after a cassation appeal was made by an individual. Thus imposing the total reimbursment of the extra amounts that had been charged, in accordance with the mortgage floor rate, which has been declared null. This measure has also been made fully retroactive, as the Chamber has adjusted its doctrine to that of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The sentence adresses the matter of allocation of costs substantially from the principle of effectiveness, while the change of precedent in the Chamber is essentially based on the European Court of Justice’s ruling on December 21st 2016, which is founded on every consumer’s right to be free from abusive clauses.
The general rule for allocation of costs is the expiry principle, which would involve losses for the consumer if there were to be any exceptions made. If the consumer should have to pay for the procedural costs once the litigations are over, a reverse deterrent effect would occur, in order to keep consumers from beginning litigations over moderate sums of money.
Furthermore, the judicial activity of the bank that had been sued, was aimed towards an attempt at suspending the litigations, appealing to the previous judicial doctrine in its favour, and completely denying the obligation of reimbursment. It also refused the procedure both before and after having knowledge of the contents of the European Court of Justice’s ruling of December 21st 2016.