The magistrates of Valencia paralyze the views until there is a final decision of the Supreme Court
judges of the province of Alicante, against, consider that you have to apply the case-law of the current High-Court
Castellón not suspnderá trials or pre-trials in advance. Be resolved in terms of what is put forward by the parties in views
In Valencia stifle 200 views, and in Alicante, will celebrate 150
The judges of the three provinces of the Valencian Community have taken different positions in relation to the judgment of the Supreme Court, which obliges the banks to pay the tax on mortgages. While the magistrates of Valencia have opted to paralyze the views that had been on the march until the 5th of November -the day in which the High Court will decide in full if reviews and corrects its judgment after the uproar that caused when it was made public six days ago-, the of Alicante shall apply to the failure of here until then.
The judges of Castellón, for its part, will not suspend trials or pre-trials in advance. Be resolved in terms of what is put forward by the parties in the views. Valencia have preferred to wait until the High Court to have a final resolution to, say, “do not create legal insecurity”, and in Alicante have chosen to move forward with a view to “apply the current legal system” of the High Court.
In the case of alicante if the two parties requested the suspension of the preliminary hearing the judge would agree. Yes, it would have to be unanimous, according to sources consulted by this newspaper. In the figures, in Valencia stifle 200 signs that may be affected by the judgment of the Supreme and Alicante will be 150 susceptible of being resolved. In spite of these three ways to proceed, in reality, all the judges of the Community shall be subject to the decision of that body presided over by Carlos Lesmes: Valencia and Castellón, because they will expect the criteria to continue working, Alicante, because, in the event the Supreme Court decides to reverse and correct its judgment, will have to abide by it, as their opinions will not be binding.
that Is to say, that if the judge of instance has resolved that it is the bank who should bear the costs of the mortgage, shall be no possibility of appeal of the other party before the Hearing and it will apply the final criteria that have settled in the High Court.
The holder of the Court of First Instance number 25 of Valencia, specialized in mortgage litigation, has decided to suspend the views considering that the fault still existing of the Supreme to review contradicts the previous case law on the matter, a fact which qualify as “grave situation of legal uncertainty”.
So, the magistrate holder, with the support of the four judges of reinforcement, has been suspended by the previous hearings and views on procedures that are affected by this matter, the ordinary procedures in the exercising action of nullity of clauses of expenses contained in the deed of mortgage, tax legal acts and application of reimbursement to the lender.
The judges are aware of the measure, they say, “will mean delays in the processing and resolution of matters, with the consequent bias that this entails for the parties” if they think that the decision is the more “responsible” in the current circumstances. For that reason, have resolved to wait until the 5 of November, that will be when you clarify the criterion of the Supreme.
In Alicante, however, the holder of First Instance number 25 has been considered that the judgement of the Supreme is valid because it is the one that is in force and, therefore, they should be applied. It was last Thursday when the Supreme Court made public a judgment that it was a revolution. In it, she agreed to attribute the payment of the lien to the banks and not the client, because they are interested in having the executive action and privileged that it derives from the mortgage. In this way modified its previous case law, according to which it was the user or consumer who had to face this tax, which for a median mortgage of 150,000 euros would lead to an amount close to 1,500 euros.
however, a day after he gave back.
The president of the Third Chamber of the Contentious issued a statement that, considering that failure meant, he argued, a “radical shift in the criterion of jurisprudence” and “in the light of its enormous economic and social impact” was agreed to leave without effect all observations with a similar object, and to convene a plenum of the room “in order to confirm if the spin case it should be or not confirmed”. From there, each deanery has made what has been considered. Within twelve days, the Supreme court will establish the ultimate criterion to be followed by the judges.
According to the criteria of
Learn more