MADRID, 26 May. (EUROPA PRESS) –

The Supreme Court has informed this Thursday of the decision of the magistrates to suspend the deliberation on the ‘macro-demand’ filed by the Association of Banking, Savings Banks and Insurance Users (Adicae) and pass the debate to the plenary session of the Civil Chamber on June 1, according to a statement to which Europa Press has had access.

It should be remembered that it was expected that the magistrates in charge of the class action, presented by Adicae, would take a deliberation today, although it has finally been decided that it be the plenary session of the room who addresses the issue and issues its decision.

This is a collective lawsuit filed by Adicae against 101 Spanish banks and savings banks. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected after the first victory that the association and consumers obtained in the first instance (in the commercial court 11 of Madrid) that was later ratified in the Provincial Court of Madrid in 2018.

In said ruling, the Court clarified, as requested by Adicae, that all the amounts collected in application of these “abusive” mortgage land must be returned, and not only those applied since 2013, and that said refund should be made to all consumers who in Spain had suffered the application of that abusive clause.

“Despite the fact that the Justice has reiterated in hundreds of thousands of resolutions the abusiveness of the floor clauses, and that the Real Estate Credit Law itself prohibited them in 2019, the condemned entities have presented appeals to each of the sentences obtained by Adicae in this collective legal action with the aim of delaying the essential global solution that requires an abuse of this scope and characteristics, while some entities have even continued to apply the floors to consumers”, denounces the association.

Finally, it will be the Supreme Court that resolves the so-called ‘macro-demand’ of Adicae “in a sentence of enormous relevance as a collective action in which the entities were sentenced to return what was unduly charged to all affected consumers,” concludes the association.