The Supreme Court makes it clear that banks are not obliged to cancel the IRPH index or return the interest charged solely on the basis that there was a lack of transparency during the marketing of the loan. As explained in ruling 486/2026, which can be consulted in the Judiciaryconsiders that the fact that a clause is not written in a clear and understandable manner does not mean that it is considered abusive.
In this way, the High Court rejects the appeal filed by some consumers against the credit institution. The clients, who signed their mortgage loans in February 2007, requested the annulment of the reference index clause, arguing that they were not provided with sufficient pre-contractual information to be able to compare the IRPH with other market alternatives, such as the Euribor.
This criterion is part of the reviews that the courts are making on variable mortgages and clarifies to what extent these cases can be claimed when the index applied was the IRPH Cajas.
Not every non-transparent clause is abusive
The Supreme Court makes it clear that it is not enough to say that the bank did not explain the IRPH well to annul the clause. As the ruling itself points out, “the lack of transparency is a necessary condition to appreciate the abusiveness of the IRPH clause, but it is not sufficient.” That is, even if the information was not entirely clear, that alone does not mean that the clause is abusive. In addition, it must be verified whether it really caused significant harm to the consumer and whether it goes against good faith.
The ruling also corrects the borrowers’ approach, since the appeal was based on the idea that a previous court had already recognized this lack of transparency, but that was not the case. In fact, in the first instance it was understood that there was information prior to the contract and it was rejected both that there was an error in the consent and a lack of transparency.
For this reason, the Supreme Court affirms that the appeal is based on “an incorrect budget” and adds that “it assumes what remains to be determined, the lack of transparency of the clause.” In other words, the plaintiffs constructed their appeal as if that point had already been proven, when it was still precisely one of the issues to be discussed.
The ruling not only confirms the validity of the criteria followed regarding the IRPH. It also rejects the second reason for the appeal, referring to the procedural costs of the appeal. The plaintiffs alleged that there was sufficient legal uncertainty not to impose them, but the Supreme Court does not accept this and considers their sentence correct in accordance with the expiration criterion.