Skip to content

How to know if I have a floor clause

As we have commented in a later article, in the ruling of the Supreme Court of May 9, 2013 The nullity of the floor clauses was declared in cases of lack of transparency. Subsequently, the defendant banks requested clarification of the ruling, with the Supreme Court issuing a Order dated June 3, 2013.
Now we must ask ourselves, based on the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court, whether our floor clause is null or not.
Can I request the annulment of my floor clause?
The banks BBVA, Novagalicia and Cajas Rurales Unidas requested clarification of the ruling of May 9, 2013 in the sense that the floor clauses indicated in the ruling are the only ones affected by the nullity. They also asked that it be clarified whether the clauses are valid when any of the requirements indicated in the ruling or those equivalent are met.
The requirements indicated in the sentence are the following:

  1. By creating the appearance of a variable interest loan contract in which the client thinks that downward fluctuations in the reference index will result in a decrease in the price of money.
  2. Due to lack of clear information that it is a defining element of the main object of the contract.
  3. Because they are inserted jointly with the ceiling clauses and as apparent consideration for them.
  4. As there are no simulations of various scenarios related to the reasonably foreseeable behavior of the interest rate at the time of contracting.
  5. Due to the lack of clear and understandable prior information on the comparative cost with other types of loans from the entity itself.
  6. When introduced together with a set of data that masks and dilutes the consumer's attention.

According to the Order, the ruling says that the floor clause is valid but must be subject to the transparency judgment required of non-negotiated clauses in which consumers participate.
Regarding the requirements listed, they will be taken into account as parameters, it is not necessary that they be given all at the same time nor considering that transparency is lacking because one of them is given in isolation.
The Supreme Court also says that to provide correct information to consumers about floor clauses, there are no specific parameters to take into account.
It should be noted that the Order does not expressly speak of contracts that include floor clauses that are made and negotiated with private institutions.
It is also interesting to note that although the bank's client has benefited for a period of time due to the inclusion of the floor clause, this benefit does not imply the declaration of that clause as valid.

It can be concluded from what has been said in this article that reaching the conclusion of whether a floor clause can be void or not should be studied in depth. The Supreme Court has given some guidelines to follow that we can use to guide us as to whether the transparency requirement has been met or, if not, we can request the nullity of our clause.
I hope this information has been of interest to you and do not hesitate to leave a comment on any matter. You can also request information by contacting us.

Lexmia is a law firm in Murcia with a national and international vocation.

We rely on lawyers with excellent training and a passion to fight for their clients.

Avenida de la Justicia No. 8 Edificio Torresur 1A Murcia
868 944 370
968 974 625
Back To Top