Company: BCDRF
Filing Date: 2025-07-31
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0000891478-25-000111
Chunk: 126

Company: Banco Santander, S.A.
Filing Date: 2025-07-31
Form: 6-K
Chunk 126
---
 deriving from this claim.

• Mortgage Expenses: In December 2015 the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that mortgage clauses relating to the payment of fees associated to formalizing the mortgage were abusive. On 27 November 2018, the Supreme Court agreed that the taxpayer of the documented legal acts stamp duty tax (IAJD) on the mortgage loans should be the borrower. On 9 November 2018, RDL 17/2018 came into force and modified the Law of the IAJD, establishing that the taxpayer is the 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 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 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 CJEU has 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 CJEU 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