Company: BCDRF
Filing Date: 2025-01-02
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0000891478-25-000002
Chunk: 43

Company: Banco Santander, S.A.
Filing Date: 2025-01-02
Form: 6-K
Chunk 43
---
 Furthermore, Uro filed a summary judgement application for BNP's claim to be dismissed before trial. The dismissal of this application by the Commercial Court was confirmed by the Appeal Court. It is estimated that the maximum loss associated with this possible contingency, amounts to approximately EUR 250 million.

• 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 September 2020, the Barcelona Court of Appeal, rendered a decision stating that the commencement (dies a quo) for the statute of limitation starts running from the day the consumer fully paid mortgage expenses. The judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court, which referred a preliminary matter to the ECJ for the establishment of the dies a quo from which the limitation period for the refund action starts running (C-561/21).

On 25 January 2024 the ECJ rendered a judgment (joint cases C‑810/21 and C‑813/21) stating that Directive 93/13 must be fixed on a case-by-case basis by national courts based on the moment when the consumer was aware of the unfair nature of the clause and the legal consequences of such unfair nature. Further, on 25 April 2024, two additional judgments were rendered (cases C-561/21 and C-484/21) in which the ECJ stated that the dies a quo 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