El Juzgado de 1ª Instancia e Instrucción nº 2 de Marchena (Sevilla) ha presentado una cuestión prejudicial ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) referida a los intereses moratorios a aplicar en las ejecuciones hipotecarias tras la promulgación de la Ley 1/2013, de Medidas urgentes para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios.

The court of 1st instance and instruction no.2 of Marchena (Seville) presented a prejudicial issue before the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) referring to the moratory interest applicable to foreclosures after the proclamation of Act 1/2013 of urgent measures to strengthen protection for mortgage debtors.

The court of 1st instance and instruction no.2 of Marchena (Seville) presented a prejudicial issue before the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) referring to the moratory interest applicable to foreclosures after the proclamation of Act 1/2013 of urgent measures to strengthen protection for mortgage debtors.

El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea ha reiterado en su Jurisprudencia, que sólo se protege al consumidor conforme a la Directiva 93/13 declarando la nulidad de las cláusulas abusivas, dado que sólo declarando la nulidad de cláusulas abusivas se disuade a las entidades bancarias de utilizar dicha práctica abusiva.

El Auto del Juzgado nº 2 de Marchena plantea al TJUE que se pronuncie acerca de si el Legislador español ha traspuesto correctamente la Directiva 93/13 del Consejo tras la sentencia que dictó el Alto Tribunal Europeo en relación al Procedimiento de Ejecución Hipotecario Español (Caso Aziz). Considera el Auto que la Ley 1/2013 y en particular su Disposición Transitoria 2ª, transgreden la Directiva 93/13 del Consejo en materia de protección de consumidores y usuarios y la jurisprudencia del TJUE, dado que impone una moderación de cuantía en los intereses moratorios (para no ser considerada abusiva la cláusula que los establece), no resultando conciliable con la obligación del Juez nacional de declarar la nulidad de las cláusulas abusivas para proteger al consumidor, cuestión que ya planteamos en anteriores artículos.

Así pregunta el Juez nº 2 de Marchena si cuando un Juez nacional aprecie la existencia de una cláusula abusiva relativa a interés moratorio en préstamos hipotecarios debe proceder a declarar la nulidad de la cláusula y su carácter no vinculante o, por el contrario, debe moderar la cláusula de intereses dando traslado al ejecutante o prestamista para que recalculen los intereses.

De aplicarse la Disposición Transitoria 2ª de la Ley 1/2013, de protección a los deudores hipotecarios, se conculcaría la efectiva protección al consumidor, dado que obliga al juzgado a moderar una cláusula de interés de mora abusiva que en modo alguno puede vincular al consumidor y supone un obstáculo para el ejercicio de acciones o recursos judiciales que garanticen la tutela efectiva y el control de oficio de las cláusulas abusivas por parte del Juez nacional, como tiene establecido el TJUE.

El titular del Juzgado nº 2 de Marchena plantea la cuestión prejudicial ante una ejecución hipotecaria del BBVA contra unos particulares, en cuyo contrato figura un interés de demora del 19% anual en caso de impago. El Juez aprecia que este tipo de interés incluido como cláusula en el contrato suscrito, es abusivo por ser “del todo desproporcionado”, incluso si se compara con otros intereses de la época en la que se firmó el contrato. Así, el interés legal del dinero estaba entonces en un 4% anual, frente al 5% de la demora en deudas tributarias, el 6% de impago de títulos cambiarios y el 8% de interés de mora en las operaciones comerciales.

Como ya dijimos en su momento al hablar de la cláusulas abusivas en los contratos de préstamo y créditos al consumo, la conclusión a la que debe llegarse es que una vez declarada abusiva la cláusula de fijación de intereses moratorios, los Jueces sólo pueden dejarla sin efecto sin poder modificar su contenido, ni moderarla, ni integrarla. La cláusula es nula, se elimina y se tiene por no puesta, según el TJUE. En este caso, el Juez lo único que podría hacer es aplicar el artículo 1.108 del Código Civil que prevé para el supuesto de mora del deudor una indemnización equivalente al interés legal del dinero, siendo esta la única cantidad que en concepto de intereses moratorios puede cobrar la parte prestamista.

The European Courts of Justice reiterated in its case-law, that only the consumer is protected, according to Directive 93/13, declaring abusive clauses invalid, given than the mere declaration of an abusive clause as invalid dissuades banking institutions from using said abusive practice.

The order from court no.2 of Marchena suggests to the ECJ that it be pronounced whether the Spanish Legislator has correctly transferred Council Directive 93/13 after the decision which was pronounced at the European High Courts relating to Spanish Foreclosure Proceedings (Caso Aziz). The order considers that Act 1/2013, particularly the 2^nd transitional provision, violates Council Directive 93/13 with regards to the protection of consumers and users and case-law of the ECJ. This is because it implies a moderation of the amount for moratory interests (so that the clause that establishes it is not considered abusive). Therefore it does not result to be reconciliable with the obligation of the national judge to declare abusive clauses as invalid in order to protect the consumer, an issue which we have already raised in other articles.

In light of this, the court no.2 of Marchena asks, when the national judge evaluates the existence of an abusive clause relating to a moratory interest in mortgage loans, whether he must proceed to declare the clause invalid and therefore non-binding or, if on the contrary, the clauses of interest should be moderated, transferring it to the performing party or lender so that they may recalculate the interests.

When applying the 2^nd transitional provision of Act 1/2013, of protection of mortgage debtors, the effective protection for the consumer is violated, as it obligates the court to moderate an abusive clause of delayed payment interests that in any way may bind the consumer and be an obstacle for the exercising of actions or judicial appeals that guarantee the effective monitoring and official control of the abusive clauses by the national judge, as the ECJ establishes.

The judge from the no.2 court of Marchena suggests the prejudicial issue before a foreclosure of BBVA against some private parties, within whose contract a late payment interest is established as an annual 19% in the case of non-payment. The Judge deems this type of interest included as a clause in the signed contract as abusive because it is “totally disproportionate”, even if it is compared with other interests that exist at the time the contract was signed. Therefore, the legal interest rate was then of 4% annually, compared to 5% of late payment for tax debts, 6% for non-payment of exchangeable bonds and 8% of late-payment interests for commercial transactions.

As we already previously commented about abusive clauses in loan and consumer credit contracts, the conclusion that should be reached is that once a clause setting moratory interests is declared abusive, the judges may only nullify it, rather than modifying its contents, moderating it, or integrating it. The clause is invalid and must be eliminated, according to the ECJ. In this case, the only thing the judge could do is apply section 1.108 of the Civil Code which foresees, for cases of late-payment from the debtor, a compensation equivalent to the legal interest rate, this being the only sum that the lender can charge for within the concept of moratory interests.

The European Courts of Justice reiterated in its case-law, that only the consumer is protected, according to Directive 93/13, declaring abusive clauses invalid, given than the mere declaration of an abusive clause as invalid dissuades banking institutions from using said abusive practice.

The order from court no.2 of Marchena suggests to the ECJ that it be pronounced whether the Spanish Legislator has correctly transferred Council Directive 93/13 after the decision which was pronounced at the European High Courts relating to Spanish Foreclosure Proceedings (Caso Aziz). The order considers that Act 1/2013, particularly the 2^nd transitional provision, violates Council Directive 93/13 with regards to the protection of consumers and users and case-law of the ECJ. This is because it implies a moderation of the amount for moratory interests (so that the clause that establishes it is not considered abusive). Therefore it does not result to be reconciliable with the obligation of the national judge to declare abusive clauses as invalid in order to protect the consumer, an issue which we have already raised in other articles.

In light of this, the court no.2 of Marchena asks, when the national judge evaluates the existence of an abusive clause relating to a moratory interest in mortgage loans, whether he must proceed to declare the clause invalid and therefore non-binding or, if on the contrary, the clauses of interest should be moderated, transferring it to the performing party or lender so that they may recalculate the interests.

When applying the 2^nd transitional provision of Act 1/2013, of protection of mortgage debtors, the effective protection for the consumer is violated, as it obligates the court to moderate an abusive clause of delayed payment interests that in any way may bind the consumer and be an obstacle for the exercising of actions or judicial appeals that guarantee the effective monitoring and official control of the abusive clauses by the national judge, as the ECJ establishes.

The judge from the no.2 court of Marchena suggests the prejudicial issue before a foreclosure of BBVA against some private parties, within whose contract a late payment interest is established as an annual 19% in the case of non-payment. The Judge deems this type of interest included as a clause in the signed contract as abusive because it is “totally disproportionate”, even if it is compared with other interests that exist at the time the contract was signed. Therefore, the legal interest rate was then of 4% annually, compared to 5% of late payment for tax debts, 6% for non-payment of exchangeable bonds and 8% of late-payment interests for commercial transactions.

As we already previously commented about abusive clauses in loan and consumer credit contracts, the conclusion that should be reached is that once a clause setting moratory interests is declared abusive, the judges may only nullify it, rather than modifying its contents, moderating it, or integrating it. The clause is invalid and must be eliminated, according to the ECJ. In this case, the only thing the judge could do is apply section 1.108 of the Civil Code which foresees, for cases of late-payment from the debtor, a compensation equivalent to the legal interest rate, this being the only sum that the lender can charge for within the concept of moratory interests.