The Supremo plans to the parties to formulate a preliminary ruling against the CJEU for the 'macro demand' of Adicae

About abusive floor clauses

MADRID, 1 Jun. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Plenary Session of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has asked the parties if it is appropriate to formulate a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in relation to the 'macro-demand' filed by the Association of Users of Banking, Savings Banks and Insurance (Adicae) on abusive floor clauses, for which it has opened a ten-day period for allegations, according to a statement sent by the High Court.

At the meeting held this Wednesday to study the collective action filed by Adicae, the plenary session examined the request of some of the appellant parties regarding the formulation of a preliminary ruling to the CJEU and considered that "its approach could be relevant" in attention to the obligation of the national courts of last instance", as is the case of the Supreme Court, "to submit requests for a preliminary ruling when dealing with unclarified acts".

Thus, the Supreme has agreed to open a period of ten days for allegations so that the parties rule on the advisability of raising the question for a preliminary ruling.

The high court has indicated to the parties that the issues on which said request would deal would be the compatibility between the "abstract control" that must be carried out in a collective action for cessation and the "detailed examination", typical of transparency control, of the information supplied, in each case, to the consumer on the legal and economic burden that the floor clause may produce.

Likewise, the difficulty of identifying the average consumer would arise when a large number of predisposing financial entities are sued for the clauses, with the consequent and relevant differences that may exist between the possible groups of affected consumers and subjects concerned.

And finally, the petition would deal with the possibility of adding a restorative action to a collective action for cessation, which is one of the elements that differentiates the actions brought in this case from the one that gave rise to the sentence of the plenary session of the Supreme Court of 9 May 2013.