The Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court (TC) has defined up to what exact moment consumers can try to stop an embargo based on bank abuses. The ruling handed down unanimously by the court establishes that judicial control over possible abusive clauses cannot be carried out if the foreclosure procedure has been definitively concluded. Furthermore, the period to claim ends at the moment the judge signs the definitive document handing over the home to the bank or a buyer, and that decision can no longer be appealed.
The resolution rejects the appeal for protection from some mortgage debtors, who sought to have the possible abusiveness of the early maturity clause of their mortgage loan reviewed; and the process was already very advanced. The ordinary courts rejected their claim because they considered it untimely (out of time), a decision that the Constitutional Court now endorses, ruling out that the right to effective judicial protection (art. 24.1 CE) of the plaintiffs has been violated.
The court explains that European jurisprudence, that is, the Directive 93/13/EECimposes on national judges the obligation to control, even ex officio, the possible abusive nature of clauses in disputes with consumers. However, the control must be carried out as soon as the judge has the necessary elements, but always subject to the condition that the judicial procedure has not been definitively concluded. The task of defining what is meant by a “final conclusion” falls to each Member State.
Thus, the TC proceeds to clarify and refine its own doctrine in this regard, which derived from a previous ruling from 2019. The court warns that, for mortgage foreclosure procedures initiated after the entry into force of Law 1/2013 (that is, as of May 15, 2013), the exceptional transitional provision that allowed this judicial control to be carried out until the moment the buyer is placed in possession of the property is no longer applicable.
As the ruling explains, the Court of Justice of the European Union itself has issued subsequent resolutions clarifying that the community directive does not require reviewing abuse when the property has already been awarded and ownership has been transferred. This applies even when the new purchaser has not been physically placed in possession of the property.
The finality of the decree marks the end
Appealing to the principle of legal certainty that the European Court also invokes, the Constitutional Court is categorical: in procedures after May 2013, the process definitively concludes, for the purposes of this doctrine, with the finality of the adjudication decree.
In the specific case that gave rise to this note of March 12, 2026, the TC verifies that the debtors submitted their request for review when the decree awarding their procedure had already become final. Therefore, the court concludes that the ordinary judges did not disregard the principle of primacy of European Union law in rejecting the petition, since the procedure had simply ended.