The Supreme Court has proved the reason to two clients who claimed BBVA to return the mortgage expenses collected improperly in its mortgage signed in 2001. The High Court confirms that the deadline to claim the return of these expenses begins to run when there is a final sentence that declares the nullity of the clause that imposed on the consumer, and not from the moment of payment, as establishes the Court of Justice of the European Union (TJUE).
According to the July 2025 judgment, customers signed their mortgage with BBVA in 2001, having to assume all the expenses of Notary, Registration and Management for a clause that justice has considered abusive years later. In addition, after the entry into force in 2019 of Law 5/2019, of March 15, regulatory of real estate credit contracts, it was established What expenses the bank should assume and which the mortgaged.
You may be interested
BBVA analyzes the synergies of the OPA to Sabadell while the condition imposed by the Government remains active
Sabadell launches a 6,300 million macrodividnd
In 2017, those affected filed a lawsuit requesting the nullity of the clause and the return of the money they had paid improperly, and the Court of First Instance No. 5 bis of Alicante proved them right by condemning BBVA to return 657.16 euros, as notary, registration and managing expenses, more legal interest from the payment.
However, the Provincial Court of Alicante revoked that conviction when the restitution action prescribed, applying article 1964 of the Civil Code, which sets the period of five years for this type of claims, and understanding that it had to be computed from the moment of the payment of the expenses, so that, having filed the demand more than fifteen years after the firm, the bank did not have to pay.
The Supreme is clear: the deadline to claim begins with firm nullity, according to European doctrine
Customers appealed before the Supreme Court defending that the deadline to claim should begin from the firmness of the sentence that declared the clause void, not from the payment, according to the European jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court has estimated its appeal and although article 1964 of the Civil Code establishes the general period of five years for personal actions, the High Court interprets, in application of Directive 93/13/CEE and the jurisprudence of the TJUE (especially the sentence of April 25, 2024, C-561/21), which, to protect the consumer, the deadline can only begin to count since the client has a real and real knowledge of Nullity, what normally occurs with the existence of a firm sentence that declares it.
In the words of the Supreme:
“Except in those cases in which the lend entity proves that, within the framework of its contractual relations, that concrete consumer could know in a previous date that this stipulation (expenses clause) was abusive, the initial day of the period of prescription of the action of restitution of mortgage expenses unduly paid by a consumer will be that of the firmness of the sentence that declares the nullity of the clapal payments ”.
The Supreme Court underlines that BBVA did not prove that customers had real knowledge of nullity before starting the procedure and, therefore, the action was not prescribed.
In addition, he insists that this interpretation is the only one that guarantees effective consumer protection, in line with the requirements of the TJUE, since otherwise the clients of their right to claim to claim the return of the amounts paid in application of a clause that did not correspond to them would be deprived.
For all these reasons, the Supreme Court annuls the sentence of the Provincial Court, condemning BBVA to return the 657.16 euros of mortgage expenses, with legal interest from the payment.