{"id":38031,"date":"2019-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-09-09T22:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aebanca.es\/actualidad\/notas-de-prensa\/statement-regarding-the-opinion-of-the-advocate-general-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-eu-on-the-irph\/"},"modified":"2026-04-08T17:35:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T15:35:00","slug":"statement-regarding-the-opinion-of-the-advocate-general-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-eu-on-the-irph","status":"publish","type":"notas-de-prensa","link":"https:\/\/aebanca.es\/en\/actualidad\/notas-de-prensa\/statement-regarding-the-opinion-of-the-advocate-general-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-eu-on-the-irph\/","title":{"rendered":"Statement regarding the Opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU on the IRPH"},"content":{"rendered":"

In relation to the Opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU, made public today, September 10, 2019, regarding a request for a preliminary ruling on a mortgage loan indexed to the IRPH, and without prejudice to the CJEU’s ruling in the coming months, we note that:<\/p>\n

1. The Advocate General does not consider either the IRPH index or the clause incorporating it into the loan agreement to be null or unfair.<\/p>\n

2. The Advocate General reaffirms that Spanish courts are responsible for analyzing compliance with transparency obligations in each individual case and recalls that the Supreme Court, in its ruling of December 14, 2017, has already ruled on a similar contractual clause.<\/p>\n

3. In any event, in this specific case, the Advocate General considers that the transparency requirements of Directive 93\/13\/EU have been met, taking into account that the IRPH is an official reference index published in the Official State Gazette.<\/p>\n

Certain paragraphs from the Advocate General’s Opinion are reproduced below for their relevance:<\/p>\n