On July thessued three Orders resolving the preliminary questions raised by the Court of st Instance number of Fuenlabrada, case C-/, the Court of st Instance number of Santander, case C-/ and the Court of st Instance number of Alicante, case C-/, on the early maturity clause in a loan contract with a mortgage guarantee. These three resolutions, together with the ruling of the CJEU of March , , accumulated cases C-/ and C-/ (which resolved the preliminary questions raised by the st Chamber of the TS and the Court of st Instance number of Barcelona), delimit the framework of community jurisprudential interpretation regarding the procedural consequences in our legal system, when an early maturity clause stipulated in a loan contract with a mortgage guarantee is declared abusive.
The Order of July , , in case C-/, resolves an issue of special relevance, such as that derived from the effects of res judicata, with the CJEU resolving that community regulations do not prevent a national court of first instance is bound by a resolution issued on appeal that orders the initiation of an enforcement procedure based on the seriousness of the breach of the obligations imposed on the cons Latvia WhatsApp Number List umer by the mortgage loan contract, and this despite the fact that contract contains a clause declared unfair in a previous resolution that has become final, but to which national law does not recognize the force of res judicata. In this case, there was a first mortgage procedure that was archived, when the Court declared the early maturity clause abusive, and the creditor entity filed a second procedure based on article of the LECivil, after the reform of the Law / , the CJEU interpreting (paragraph ) that the economic consequences suffered by the consumer do not derive from the abusive clause, but from the contractual breach consisting of not satisfying the monthly amortization installments, which constitutes their essential obligation within the framework of the contract.
Loan concluded. Once the preliminary question raised by the CJEU in its ruling of March , has been resolved, we are waiting to know the ruling that the TS will issue shortly (unless there is an error, it will be analyzed in the Plenary Session on July , ). , the TS must resolve the appeal suspended due to the preliminary question raised, although given that it derived from an ordinary declaratory procedure, it will be necessary to see if the ruling can be applied to all pending mortgage foreclosure procedures, initiated prior to the entry into force of the LCCI. The first transitional provision, fourth section of the LCCI, provides that article will not apply to loan contracts with mortgage guarantees formalized prior to its entry into force, whose early expiration would have occurred prior to its entry into force. of the LCCI, whether or not a foreclosure procedure had been initiated to make it effective and whether it was suspended or not; exception that does not apply to the rest of the contracts, in which the new regulation on early expiration contained in article.