relating to the application of the so - called “ floor clauses ” to variable - rate mortgages ( in 2013 - 2014 ) and those relating to the payment of mortgage loan arrangement costs, which peaked in 2017, with 23, 040 claims. as you all know, the most paradigmatic case in terms of media coverage and social and economic impact has been that of the floor clauses. the number of claims for this reason and the scale of the figures meant extra - judicial avenues had to be used, so as to pave the way for the refund of the amounts unduly paid, in keeping with supreme court jurisprudence. specifically, royal decree - law 1 / 2017 obliged banks to set in place a pre - claim system. on the latest figures released ( september 2020 ), more than 1, 220, 000 individuals had submitted claims, with almost €2. 4 billion refunded. special courts were also set up, with over 570, 000 claims received to date, of which more than 250, 000 are still pending resolution. you are all no doubt aware that these high litigiousness figures entail a most considerable 2 / 6 bis central bankers'speeches workload for our already overburdened legal system, as well as involving a high economic and reputational cost for financial institutions. but i would further stress that the uncertainty associated with litigiousness may ultimately restrict or raise the cost of access to credit, harming bank customers. the lack of legal certainty prevents anticipation of the costs and risks associated with a transaction, which particularly affects very long - term operations, such as mortgage loans. unsurprisingly, banks build into prices the costs associated with such uncertainty. i believe we can concur that legal certainty is well worth protecting, given that it is to everybody ’ s benefit. the regulations must guarantee this certainty, which is perfectly compatible with the proper protection of bank customers. in this respect, i believe the law on real estate credit is fit for purpose, as it straddles both elements. law on real estate credit the starting point for the rules in question here is the asymmetrical position of the lender and the borrower in the contractual relationship. in that light, the law considers that it does not suffice to provide information to and warn the customer ; rather, it demands of the professional party, which dominates the relationship, even more accountability in its behaviour towards the borrower. accordingly, the mandatory documentation to be

would like to stress that these measures are really necessary. not only to prevent further harm, but also to restore trust in the financial sector. trust is an extremely important aspect of any services sector, and the financial sector is a services sector pur sang. if a feeling of uneasiness remains among clients and investors, or financial institutions cannot trust each other as they should, then financial ( and consequently economic ) development grinds to a halt. so restoring trust in the financial sector is an absolute priority and we have to go great lengths to achieve this. at the same time it seems as if the sense of urgency for change among bankers and politicians has somewhat diminished lately, now that we see the first signs of recovery. opposition against the proposals from the basel committee is growing, through lobbies from the financial sector. for this reason, we, as supervisors, have to do our utmost best to uphold these proposals, because otherwise countries may be forced to implement measures on their own. the result of this will be a distortion of the international level playing field, which in the end will not benefit the financial sector. it is for this reason that we will organise a comprehensive quantitative impact study in the first half of this year. with this impact study we can see what the impact of all individual proposals will be, as well as the aggregate impact of all proposed measures combined, so that we can implement measures with care, in a responsible and well - considered manner. and all of these measures will be considered in the light of the economic recovery, making sure that they will not harm the recovery process. i am aware of the current debates about reducing the size of the sector, adding taxes, cutting bonuses, and the like. it is true that there are indeed excesses which are not acceptable anymore, and these have to be dealt with. at the same time, we should refrain from overreacting and take care to not implement measures which we have not fully thought through. beside all these new regulatory measures we have realised that there is also an urgent need for closer international supervisory cooperation. the rapid development in cross border banking has shown us supervisors that our current organisational structure is no longer adequate and limits our ability to rapidly respond to developing situations. a shift towards a more unified regulatory framework has therefore slowly been set into motion, for instance in europe with the new structures for cebs or ceiops, or through the intensified use of supervisory colleges. crucial, though, in this process, is full and mutual