The Thirteenth Section of the Provincial Court of Madrid has condemned Wizink Bank for signing a contract in 2012 with an interest rate of 26.82% APR, thus ratifying the ruling of the Court of First Instance number 88 of Madrid that considered the contract null and void for containing a usurious remunerative interest.
After this ruling, the bank must reimburse the affected party "any amounts that exceed the capital drawn down during the entire life of the contract, with the corresponding interest," as well as the payment of the costs incurred.
As established in the ruling, on June 6, 2012, an individual signed a contract to obtain a credit card with Citibank (Wizink Bank), and this contract stipulated a credit limit of 1,500 euros, with an interest rate of 26.82% APR. However, said interest was unilaterally reduced by the bank in March 2020, and an interest of 21,94% APR was applied from that moment on.
Accordingly, the man filed a lawsuit for invalidation of the 'City Oro' contract card against Wizink Bank, alleging that the agreed rate "significantly exceeded that applied in that type of operations." Consequently, it requested the declaration of nullity of the contract due to the usurious character of the agreed interest, as well as the reimbursement by the bank of the amount that exceeds the capital drawn down, together with the corresponding interest.
Furthermore, the plaintiff requested that some of the clauses contained in the regulations of the credit card contract, as well as those related to the borrowing interest rate and the return commission, the general conditions, be considered abusive and not incorporated due to lack of transparency. of the personal loan and the table of fees and applicable interest rates.
In response, Wizink Bank filed a response in which it denied that the agreed interest rate exceeded the standard applied in credit transactions. revolving credit cards. He also alleged that the restitutionary action had already prescribed, rejecting that the contracting had not respected transparency, as well as that the clauses invoked by the plaintiff could be abusive.
Although the Court of First Instance number 88 of Madrid upheld the claim in its entirety, declaring the nullity of the contract signed by both parties, as it contained a usurious remunerative interest. The banking entity presented an appeal to which the Provincial Court of Madrid issued its opinion, based on previous jurisprudence, specifically on the ruling of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2015.
Regarding the prescription of the compensatory action, the Provincial Court of Madrid has ratified the decision taken in the first instance. To justify this position, the Court has cited previous rulings from other judicial instances, concluding that in this case, as the action for declaration of nullity of the contract and the restitution of amounts are exercised cumulatively, both necessarily and jointly derive from the ineffectiveness of the contract. Therefore, the prescription does not apply due to the nature of the absolute nullity of the contract due to usury, and the consequences that arise from it, as established in the Usury repression law.
Finally, the Court has highlighted that, if the appellant's approach, Wizink Bank, is accepted, it would be going against the purpose of the regulations, which seek to harshly punish usurious practices and deprive them of any effect or validity. Consequently, it decided to dismiss the appeal presented, thus confirming the lower court ruling, which condemns Wizink Bank for signing a contract in 2012 with an interest rate of 26.82% APR.
