IRPH decision

Hello Amanda,

Thank you for sharing your situation. I’m sorry to hear about the high rates you endured and the outcome in Málaga.

1. ECJ Judgment (C-300/23, 12 Dec 2024)
   The Court of Justice of the European Union has now confirmed that IRPH clauses remain subject to the Unfair Terms Directive—and that banks must have provided clear, transparent information on how IRPH was calculated, its historical evolution and its impact on your APR.
2. Effect on your 2021 Judgment
   Under Spanish civil procedure, a final judgment normally produces res judicata, meaning you cannot reopen the same claim on the same grounds. The fact that you were barred from appeal in 2021 usually precludes a second bite at the cherry.
3. Possible New Avenues
   • Supreme Court Doctrine: We must now see how the Tribunal Supremo incorporates the ECJ’s strict transparency requirements into Spanish case law. If it issues a ruling that significantly changes the criteria for IRPH abusivity, there may be limited scope for extraordinary reviews (recurso de revisión) in truly exceptional circumstances—though those are very narrowly defined.
   • Soil Clause Repayment: Separately, you should request from Sabadell a full breakdown of any “cláusula suelo” reimbursement (amount and dates). That is your right under consumer protection rules.
4. What You Can Do Today
   • • Wait for the Supreme Court: As of July 2025, no final Supreme Court doctrine has been published. Once it delivers clear guidance, we’ll better know whether any exceptional procedure might reopen your case.
   • Document Everything: Gather all loan contracts, payment schedules and any pre-contractual disclosures you received. If a review becomes possible, having a complete file will be essential.
   • Consult Expert Counsel: A lawyer specializing in mortgage litigation can track the Supreme Court’s developments and advise you immediately if a window to seek review emerges.

In short, the ECJ judgment is favorable to consumers on transparency grounds, but we must await how Spain’s highest court applies it. Until the Supreme Court rules, no new claim on the IRPH itself can realistically proceed—but keep your documents ready and stay in touch with a specialist so you can act promptly once the national doctrine changes.

Best wishes,
Pau A. Monserrat
CEO, Futur Finances

Dear Amanda,

Your inquiry regarding the status of claims related to the IRPH (Mortgage Loan Reference Index) and the “cláusula suelo” (floor clause) in your mortgage with Banco Herrero, later merged with Sabadell, is quite pertinent given the recent developments in this area. I understand your concerns, especially in light of your previous legal challenges and the high-interest rates you’ve been subjected to.

First, let’s discuss the IRPH. The recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on July 13, 2023, is indeed a significant development. According to this decision, in order to assess the transparency and potential abusiveness of a mortgage loan clause that uses an interest rate index (such as IRPH), it is relevant to consider the content of the information provided in related official circulars. This includes understanding whether a negative differential should be applied to the index to align it with market interest rates and whether this information is sufficiently accessible to an average consumer.

The CJEU’s stance emphasizes the need for clear, understandable, and accessible information regarding how the IRPH is calculated and applied. This is crucial because, without such transparency, consumers like you cannot make well-informed decisions.

On the other hand, the Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo), as of January 28, 2022, upheld the use of IRPH by financial institutions. The court did not find the index to be more easily manipulable than other official indices, despite the discontinuation of LIBOR for similar reasons and the technical deficiencies in the IRPH calculation method. This stance of the Supreme Court has been a subject of debate and criticism, especially considering the fewer data sources contributing to the IRPH calculation, which might make it a more questionable reference.

Regarding your specific situation, the inability to appeal your case in 2021 and the high-interest rates you’ve been subjected to are indeed concerning. While the CJEU’s decision provides a new perspective on the assessment of IRPH clauses, whether this allows for reopening your case or filing a new claim depends on several factors, including the specifics of your original case and the interpretation of the CJEU’s ruling by Spanish courts.

As for the “cláusula suelo,” if you believe that you haven’t been adequately compensated for the overpaid interest due to this clause, it might be worth reviewing the terms of your mortgage agreement and the calculations used for the repayment. The compensation for “cláusula suelo” should align with the excess interest paid due to this clause, and you have the right to a clear and detailed explanation of how it was calculated.

In summary, while the CJEU’s ruling sheds new light on the assessment of IRPH clauses, the application of this ruling in Spanish courts, particularly in your case, is not entirely straightforward. It would be advisable to consult with a legal expert specialized in mortgage law to explore the possibility of taking new legal action or reviewing your compensation for the “cláusula suelo.”

Please remember, every case has its unique aspects, and a detailed analysis of your specific circumstances is crucial for any legal advice.

Sincerely,

Pau A. Monserrat