Company: BCDRF
Filing Date: 2025-04-30
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0000891478-25-000084
Chunk: 40

Company: Banco Santander, S.A.
Filing Date: 2025-04-30
Form: 6-K
Chunk 40
---
 Bank. On 23 January 2019, the Supreme Court ruled the distribution of the same must be 50% between the Bank and the borrower in public notary expenses and agency expenses. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Bank must pay 100% of the Registry. On 26 October 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bank is fully responsible for the management expenses; and on 27 January 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bank is also responsible for the valuation expenses.

In relation to the statute of limitations, on 25 April 2024, two judgments were rendered (cases C-561/21 and C-484/21) in which the ECJ stated that the commencement of the statute of limitations for the annulment of the mortgage expenses shall be fixed on the moment when the consumer has an effective knowledge of the abusive nature of the clause and its effects and that this date must not be fixed (a) on the date of payment of such expense nor of the execution of the agreement; (b) when the Supreme Court has handed down judgments stating the abusive nature of a clause similar to the one included in the consumer contract; nor (c) when the ECJ has

| 32 |     | January - March 2025 |

handed down judgments confirming that the statute of limitations for the annulment of contractual provisions is valid subject to its compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

The Supreme Court has confirmed this criterion in its 14 June 2024 judgment, establishing that the public dissemination of case-law declaring the abusive nature of a clause does not necessarily give rise to the limitation period of the reimbursement action derived from similar clauses. However, the 4 July 2024 judgment, rendered in the case C-450/22, the ECJ has established that it cannot be excluded a priori that, as a consequence of the occurrence of an objective event or of a notorious event, such as the amendment of the applicable legislation or a widely disseminated and debated development of jurisprudence, the court considers that the average consumer's overall perception of the floor clause has changed during the reference period and has enabled him to become aware of the potentially significant economic consequences arising from such clause. A further preliminary question concerning the statute of limitations of the annulment of mortgage expenses has been raised before the ECJ by the First Instance Court No 8 of La Coruña. In December in 2024, the Supreme Court handed down two additional judgments regarding statute of limitations,