Contractual liability

Contractual liability arises from the contract and requires that the party that may demand it be linked by a contractual link to the person who owes it. The contract may be poorly executed or not executed at all. In these cases, the creditor or lender has the right to go to court to force the debtor to forcibly satisfy the contract or to be compensated for damages. The law usually strongly protects the creditor. The contractual breach is considered unlawful conduct attributable to the debtor as long as there are no clauses that may be void or abusive. In some contracts not even force majeure exempts from compliance with the debt, for example, in the obligations to deliver a sum of money.

Ineffectiveness of contracts and nullity of abusive clauses

Contracts can be declared ineffective when they lack any of the essential elements or when they are flawed. Ineffectiveness has different manifestations and effects depending on the type of invalidity caused to the contract. In this regard, they are a consequence of typical invalidating defects: Annulability, nullity, resciliation, rescission, resolution, revocation "Revocation (Law)") and contractual simulation.

Unfair clauses are usually not negotiated and are incorporated and imposed by one of the parties - normally the bank or company. This type of clauses go against the principle of good faith, since it causes a serious imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the worker, consumer or one of the contractual parties. The law considers abusive clauses null and void, which does not imply the nullity of the contract, although it may be substantially altered.[6][7]​ An early maturity clause will be abusive when, taking into account the nature of the goods or services in the contract, in this case a loan, it is "excessive and disproportionate" to be able to declare early maturity due to non-compliance with a number of installments that is not proportional to the duration and amount of the contract.[8]​ For example, the Order of the Provincial Court of Barcelona, Section 16, No. 357/2015, of November 27, 2015, considered an early maturity clause to be abusive for non-payment of 5 monthly payments out of a total of 480, with the amount owed not even reaching 1% of the financed capital.[9] For its part, the Order of the Provincial Court of Valencia, Section 9th, No. 501/2015, of July 14, 2015, establishes that "in the event of the debtor's failure to comply with the essential obligation to pay the agreed installments, the validity of said clause can be accepted as long as that failure is relevant, without the early maturity being able, therefore, to be based on "any" failure."[10]

En la sentencia n.º 705/2015 del Tribunal Supremo relativa a las cláusulas abusivas en las hipotecas (entre ellas las denominadas cláusulas suelo, cláusulas sobre formalización de gastos hipotecarios") y cláusulas sobre vencimiento anticipado entre otras) se considera la validez general de dichas cláusulas, pero no se excluye su posible nulidad en determinados casos. Existiría licitud en la inclusión de cláusulas sobre vencimiento anticipado para proceder a la ejecución hipotecaria (desahucio o lanzamiento) favorable al banco pero también pueden considerarse cláusulas abusivas y por tanto nulas cuando los períodos de impago se consideran demasiado cortos y por tanto perjudiciales en extremo para el deudor o se hayan impuesto sin conocimiento comprobado por el banco.[3]​[5]​[1]​[11]​[12]​.

En enero de 2017, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea determinó que un juez nacional, de España en este caso, puede anular por abusiva una cláusula de vencimiento anticipado de una hipoteca y dejarla sin aplicar, aunque en la práctica no haya sido empleada (porque el deudor no ha llegado a impagar cuotas hipotecarias). Esto significa que el procedimiento de ejecución hipotecaria también debe ser declarado nulo e inexistente.[13]​.

Según el Tribunal Supremo, no resulta suficiente para declarar como abusiva una cláusula de vencimiento anticipado la concurrencia o no del impago del número de cuotas fijado en el artículo 693.2 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, sino que el juez debe comprobar, a efectos de decretar su validez o nulidad, la esencialidad de la obligación incumplida, la gravedad del incumplimiento en relación con la cuantía y duración del contrato de préstamo, y la posibilidad real del deudor de evitar esa consecuencia.[14]​.

Causes of abuse in early maturity clauses

The causes of abuse in early maturity clauses, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which allow the entire debt to be declared overdue and therefore proceed to foreclosure and/or eviction are:

[13]​.

Claim for annulment of all evictions since 1995

For some organizations such as the Mortgage Affected Platform (PAH), the ruling of January 26 by the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) would make it possible to demand the declaration of nullity of all mortgage launches executed since 1995. The ruling would allow a judge to consider the annulment of a mortgage contract if it contains an abusive clause, even if this clause has not been applied. Option that has not been allowed to be applied in any case, which would have left those affected by the evictions in Spain defenseless.[15]​[16]​[17]​[18]​.

Contractual liability

Contractual liability arises from the contract and requires that the party that may demand it be linked by a contractual link to the person who owes it. The contract may be poorly executed or not executed at all. In these cases, the creditor or lender has the right to go to court to force the debtor to forcibly satisfy the contract or to be compensated for damages. The law usually strongly protects the creditor. The contractual breach is considered unlawful conduct attributable to the debtor as long as there are no clauses that may be void or abusive. In some contracts not even force majeure exempts from compliance with the debt, for example, in the obligations to deliver a sum of money.

Ineffectiveness of contracts and nullity of abusive clauses

Contracts can be declared ineffective when they lack any of the essential elements or when they are flawed. Ineffectiveness has different manifestations and effects depending on the type of invalidity caused to the contract. In this regard, they are a consequence of typical invalidating defects: Annulability, nullity, resciliation, rescission, resolution, revocation "Revocation (Law)") and contractual simulation.

Unfair clauses are usually not negotiated and are incorporated and imposed by one of the parties - normally the bank or company. This type of clauses go against the principle of good faith, since it causes a serious imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the worker, consumer or one of the contractual parties. The law considers abusive clauses null and void, which does not imply the nullity of the contract, although it may be substantially altered.[6][7]​ An early maturity clause will be abusive when, taking into account the nature of the goods or services in the contract, in this case a loan, it is "excessive and disproportionate" to be able to declare early maturity due to non-compliance with a number of installments that is not proportional to the duration and amount of the contract.[8]​ For example, the Order of the Provincial Court of Barcelona, Section 16, No. 357/2015, of November 27, 2015, considered an early maturity clause to be abusive for non-payment of 5 monthly payments out of a total of 480, with the amount owed not even reaching 1% of the financed capital.[9] For its part, the Order of the Provincial Court of Valencia, Section 9th, No. 501/2015, of July 14, 2015, establishes that "in the event of the debtor's failure to comply with the essential obligation to pay the agreed installments, the validity of said clause can be accepted as long as that failure is relevant, without the early maturity being able, therefore, to be based on "any" failure."[10]

En la sentencia n.º 705/2015 del Tribunal Supremo relativa a las cláusulas abusivas en las hipotecas (entre ellas las denominadas cláusulas suelo, cláusulas sobre formalización de gastos hipotecarios") y cláusulas sobre vencimiento anticipado entre otras) se considera la validez general de dichas cláusulas, pero no se excluye su posible nulidad en determinados casos. Existiría licitud en la inclusión de cláusulas sobre vencimiento anticipado para proceder a la ejecución hipotecaria (desahucio o lanzamiento) favorable al banco pero también pueden considerarse cláusulas abusivas y por tanto nulas cuando los períodos de impago se consideran demasiado cortos y por tanto perjudiciales en extremo para el deudor o se hayan impuesto sin conocimiento comprobado por el banco.[3]​[5]​[1]​[11]​[12]​.

En enero de 2017, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea determinó que un juez nacional, de España en este caso, puede anular por abusiva una cláusula de vencimiento anticipado de una hipoteca y dejarla sin aplicar, aunque en la práctica no haya sido empleada (porque el deudor no ha llegado a impagar cuotas hipotecarias). Esto significa que el procedimiento de ejecución hipotecaria también debe ser declarado nulo e inexistente.[13]​.

Según el Tribunal Supremo, no resulta suficiente para declarar como abusiva una cláusula de vencimiento anticipado la concurrencia o no del impago del número de cuotas fijado en el artículo 693.2 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, sino que el juez debe comprobar, a efectos de decretar su validez o nulidad, la esencialidad de la obligación incumplida, la gravedad del incumplimiento en relación con la cuantía y duración del contrato de préstamo, y la posibilidad real del deudor de evitar esa consecuencia.[14]​.

Causes of abuse in early maturity clauses

The causes of abuse in early maturity clauses, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which allow the entire debt to be declared overdue and therefore proceed to foreclosure and/or eviction are:

[13]​.

Claim for annulment of all evictions since 1995

For some organizations such as the Mortgage Affected Platform (PAH), the ruling of January 26 by the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) would make it possible to demand the declaration of nullity of all mortgage launches executed since 1995. The ruling would allow a judge to consider the annulment of a mortgage contract if it contains an abusive clause, even if this clause has not been applied. Option that has not been allowed to be applied in any case, which would have left those affected by the evictions in Spain defenseless.[15]​[16]​[17]​[18]​.