COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 19 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2018 (725/2018)

Abstract

espanolLa sentencia de la Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo de 19 de diciembre de 2018, razona que el efecto restitutorio derivado del articulo 6.1 de la Directiva 93/13 no es directamente reconducible al articulo 1303 del Codigo civil cuando se trata de la clausula de gastos, en tanto que no son abonos hechos por el consumidor al banco que este deba devolver (como intereses o comisiones), sino pagos hechos por el consumidor a terceros (notario, registrador de la propiedad, gestoria, tasador, etc.), en virtud de la imposicion contenida en la clausula abusiva. En consecuencia, para dar efectividad al tan mencionado articulo 6.1 de la Directiva, en lo que respecta a los intereses que han de devengar las cantidades que debe percibir el consumidor, resulta aplicable analogicamente el articulo 1896 del Codigo civil, puesto que la calificacion de la clausula como abusiva es equiparable a la mala fe del predisponente. Conforme a dicho precepto, cuando haya de restituirse una cantidad de dinero debera abonarse el interes legal desde el momento en que se recibio el pago indebido —en este caso, se produjo el beneficio indebido. EnglishThe Judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of December 19, 2018, reasons that the restorative effect derived from art. 6.1 of Directive 93/13 is not directly applicable to art. 1303 CC when it comes to the clause of expenses, insofar as they are not payments made by the consumer to the bank that he must return (such as interest or commissions), but payments made by the consumer to third parties (notary, property registrar, agency, appraiser, etc.), by virtue of the imposition contained in the abusive Consequently, to give effect to the aforementioned art. 6.1 of the Directive, with regard to the interests that must accrue the amounts that the consumer must receive, it is applicable analogically the art. 1896 CC, since the qualification of the clause as abusive is comparable to the bad faith of the predisponent. According to that precept, when a quantity of money has to be reimbursed, the legal interest must be paid from the moment in which the undue payment was received —in this case, the undue benefit was produced.