The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a client who claimed from Bankia (currently CaixaBank) the return of the mortgage expenses and the opening fee paid when signing her mortgage in 1999. The High Court found that the amounts claimed were not time-barred because the period for the claim begins to run from the moment the nullity of said clause is declared. as the European Justice has already made clear ,so the bank must return 1,392.64 euros collected abusively.
According to the ruling of April 20, 2026, the affected party signed a mortgage loan in March 1999 with Caja de Ahorros de Valencia, Castellón y Alicante, later Bankia and today CaixaBank. The contract included a clause that obliged the consumer to assume all expenses derived from the mortgage (notary, registry, management and appraisal) in addition to an opening commission and late payment interest.
CaixaBank needs to sell this house in good condition of more than 300 meters, 4 bedrooms, terrace and garage and the reduction for a limited time to 44,000 euros
The ‘la Caixa’ scholarships of 750 euros per month to study at the university in the 2026/27 academic year: provide other additional aid for materials and English
Years later, the client requested the annulment of said clauses because they were abusive. The Court of First Instance no. restitution action.
The Supreme Court overturns the prescription and forces CaixaBank to return the money
The Supreme Court considered that the period to claim was not prescribed and for this it relied on the doctrine established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and on its own ruling of the Plenary Session 857/2024, of June 14, on the prescription of claims for mortgage expenses.
Specifically, the Supreme Court recalled that article 6.1 of Directive 93/13/EEC requires that abusive clauses “not bind” the consumer and that article 7 of that same directive requires States to establish effective mechanisms to prevent the continued use of this type of clauses.
In this sense, he pointed out that the limitation period for claiming mortgage expenses cannot begin automatically when they were paid, unless the bank demonstrates that the consumer previously knew that the clause was abusive. If this cannot be demonstrated, the period begins to run from the moment the clause is declared null and void.
The ruling expressly states:
“Except in those cases in which the lending entity proves that that specific consumer could have known on a previous date that this stipulation was abusive, the initial day of the limitation period will be the final day of the judgment declaring the nullity of the clause.”
In this case, CaixaBank did not prove that the client was previously aware of the abusiveness of the expenses clause, so the claim remained fully valid.
The opening fee can also be claimed without a time limit
One of the most relevant aspects of the ruling affects the opening commission. The Supreme Court differentiates between mortgage expenses paid to third parties and the opening commission charged directly by the bank.
In this last case, the High Court affirmed that the return automatically derives from the nullity of the clause, in accordance with article 1303 of the Civil Code, which obliges the parties to return the amounts to each other when a contract or clause is declared null.
Therefore, it concluded that an independent action is not necessary to claim the return of the commission and that, since it is a nullity by operation of law, it is not appropriate to apply prescription.
The ruling also cited the CJEU resolution of March 13, 2025, which supports that the action to annul an abusive clause is imprescriptible although the derived economic claim may be subject to a deadline in certain circumstances.