Article 17 - Right to property
Article 21 - Non-discrimination
Article 38 - Consumer protection
Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (BES) is a Portuguese bank that had been carrying out in Spain the activity that constitutes its corporate purpose through the creation of a branch, Banco Espirito Santo S.A. Sucursal en España (BES España).
The Banco de Portugal adopted in a decision on 3 /8/2014, as amended by another decision of 11 August 2014, what it called "resolution measures" for BES. In that Decision, it agreed to set up a "bridge bank" called Novo Banco S.A. (Novo Banco) to which the business of BES described in Annex 2 of the Decision was partially transferred.
On 3/10/2007, Mr. Jacinto and Ms. Modesta entered into an atypical financial contract (AFC) with BES Spain, with an investment of €50,000. The CFA matured on 11/10/2014 and Novo Banco paid them €17,490.68.
On 28/4/2008, the same parties subscribed, under the name "Hiperion Semestral sobre IBEX-35", a structured financial product contract for a nominal amount of €20,000, which matured on 28 April 2013 and was settled by BES Spain with a loss of €4,143.
As of August 2014, Mr. Jacinto received several communications from Novo Banco, assuring him, among other things, that BES España had become part of the new entity, Novo Banco España, "which is now more solid and more secure", and that "there is no change in the activity with our clients".
Mr. Jacinto and Ms. Modesta filed a lawsuit against Novo Banco S.A. on 17/4/ 2017. in which they requested, as the main claim, the annulment of both contracts for error in consent, due to the defective information provided to them by BES, and the reciprocal restitution of the amounts received by each party, with interest from the date of each payment and, alternatively, an order to compensate the plaintiffs for the losses they suffered by contracting both products, plus interest calculated at the legal interest rate from the date of notification of the claim.
Novo Banco España opposed the claim and raised the plea of lack of standing to sue.
Although there is some variety in the solutions adopted by the Spanish first instance courts, they have frequently rejected the plea of lack of standing to sue and have condemned Novo Banco España.
The Supreme Court notes that the BES resolution measures have given rise to a great deal of litigation in Spain. Finally, it referred three questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. At issue is the correct application to this and similar litigation of the following principles of EU law: legal certainty, effective judicial protection and the right to a fair trial, the right to property, and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the Treaties.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Spanish Supreme Court referred three questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on (i) the significance of the failure to publish the resolution measures in Spain, (ii) customer confidence in the conduct of Novo Banco España, and (iii) the fragmentation of the contractual relationship to the detriment of the consumer. And it does so, fundamentally, in relation to the interpretation of Articles 17, 21, 38 and 47 of the Charter, as well as Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions. At issue is the correct application to this and similar disputes of the following principles of the EU legal order: legal certainty, effective judicial protection and the right to a fair trial, the right to property, and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the Treaties.
Outcome of the case:
By means of a firm resolution (Auto) against which no appeal is possible, the Supreme Court decided to refer three questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, on whose decision will depend the definitive resolution of the case and similar litigation.
1. - The subject-matter of the question referred for a preliminary ruling falls within the scope of EU law. As stated in paragraph 30 of the judgment of the CJEU of 5 May 2022, Case C-83/20 (EU:C:2022:346), where a Member State takes measures to implement commitments entered into under a memorandum of understanding which forms part of Union law, it must be regarded as applying that law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter.
2. - Likewise, the subject-matter of this question is also the interpretation of Directive 2001/24/EC and, in particular, the interpretation of certain of its provisions so that they may be compatible with certain fundamental rights of the Charter and other general principles of EU law.
...
23.- The effective judicial protection guaranteed by the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter requires, inter alia, that the person concerned be able to decide, in full knowledge of the facts, whether to bring an action against a particular entity before the competent court (Case C 230/18 EU:C:2019:383, paragraph 78, and Case 504/19 EU:C:2021:335, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).
24. - For those reasons, the Court has doubts as to the compatibility with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter, the general principle of legal certainty and the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 21(2) of the Charter of an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 which entails recognition of the effects of a decision of the competent administrative authority of the Member State of origin which has not been published in the terms required by Article 6(1) to (4) of Directive 2001/24.
9. - In those circumstances, the Court considers that there are reasonable doubts as to the compatibility with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter and the general principle of legal certainty of an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 which would entail the recognition of the effects of a decision of the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which has excluded certain obligations and liabilities from the transfer to a 'bridge bank' of the ordinary business and a number of assets of the bank to which the reorganisation measures apply, where the subsequent action of the bridge bank itself, controlled by a public authority applying Union law, has created a legitimate expectation on the part of customers in the host Member State that, by taking over the banking business of BES and replacing BES in the latter's legal relations with its customers, it had also assumed the liabilities corresponding to the liabilities and obligations which the bank subject to the reorganisation measure had in respect of those customers.
6. - The guarantee of a high level of consumer protection laid down in Article 38 of the Charter may be compromised if resolution measures, adopted within the scope of Union law, fragment the contractual relationships which those consumers have with the bank subject to such measures, so that the creditor positions in those relationships are transferred to the 'bridge bank' and the liabilities and obligations in respect of those consumers remain with the bank which is not viable. In this case, the plaintiffs have the status of consumers because by investing their savings in the products offered by BES Spain they acted as natural persons intervening in the market for purposes other than a professional or commercial activity. This problem also arises in relation to the restitution of sums paid by consumers as a result of the application of unfair terms, which was the subject of a question referred for a preliminary ruling in appeal 4170/2018.
7.- This Court considers it debatable whether the right to restitution of sums unduly paid by a consumer as a result of the application of a floor clause is protected by the right to property recognised in Article 17 of the Charter. However, the possibility that it may be protected by that Article of the Charter is raised in the light of the broad interpretation which the European Court of Human Rights has given to the object protected by Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (in this connection, judgments of 20 November 1995, Pressos Compania Naviera S. A. and Others v. Belgium, EC:ECHR:1995:1120JUD001784991, paragraph 31; 30 November 2004, Öneryildiz v. Turkey, EC:ECHR:2004:1130JUD004893999, paragraph 124; and 11 January 2007, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal, EC:ECHR:2007:0111JUD007304901, paragraph 63) and the provisions of Article 52(3) of the Charter.
1. - Is it compatible with the fundamental right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), the general principle of legal certainty and the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 21. 2 of the Charter, an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 which entails recognition, in a host Member State, of the effects of a decision of the competent administrative authority of the Member State of origin which has not been published in the terms required by Article 6(1) to (4) of Directive 2001/24?
2. - Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 which entails recognition, in a host Member State, of the effects of a decision of the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which has excluded certain obligations and liabilities of the transfer to a 'bridge bank' of the ordinary business and a number of assets of the bank to which the reorganisation measures apply compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter and the general principle of legal certainty, where the subsequent conduct of the 'bridge bank' itself, which is controlled by a public authority applying European Union law, has created a legitimate expectation on the part of the customers of the host Member State that it has assumed the liabilities corresponding to the liabilities and obligations which the bank subject to the reorganisation measure had in respect of those customers?
3. - Is it compatible with the fundamental right to property under Article 17 of the Charter, the principle of high consumer protection under Article 38 of the Charter and the general principle of legal certainty for an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 to entail recognition, in a host Member State, the effects of a decision of the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which transfers to a 'bridge bank' the creditor position in the contractual relations entered into by the bank which is the subject of the reorganisation measures but leaves the bank with no obligation to repay to the customer the sums paid by the customer in respect of contracts which have been annulled because of an error in consent caused by inadequate information provided by the bank?
1. - El objeto de la cuestión prejudicial se encuentra incluido en el ámbito de aplicación del Derecho de la UE. Como se afirma en el apartado 30 de la sentencia del TJUE de 5 de mayo de 2022, asunto C-83/20( EU:C:2022:346), cuando un Estado miembro adopta medidas para ejecutar compromisos asumidos en el marco de un memorándum de acuerdo que forma parte del Derecho de la Unión, debe considerarse que aplica ese Derecho, en el sentido del artículo 51, apartado 1, de la Carta.
2.- Asimismo, el objeto de esta cuestión prejudicial está también constituido por la interpretación de la Directiva2001/24/CE y, en concreto, la interpretación de algunos de sus preceptos para que puedan ser compatibles con algunos derechos fundamentales de la Carta y otros principios generales del Derecho de la UE.
23.- La tutela judicial efectiva garantizada en el artículo 47, párrafo primero, de la Carta exige, entre otras cuestiones, que el interesado pueda decidir, con pleno conocimiento de causa, sobre la conveniencia de interponer ante el juez competente una demanda contra una entidad determinada ( sentencias de 8 de mayo de2019, C 230/18, EU:C:2019:383, apartado 78, y de 29 de abril de 2021, asunto 504/19, EU:C:2021:335, apartado57, y jurisprudencia citada).
24.- Por estas razones, este tribunal alberga dudas sobre la compatibilidad con el derecho fundamental a la tutela judicial efectiva del artículo 47 de la Carta, el principio general de seguridad jurídica y el principio de igualdad e interdicción de toda discriminación por razón de nacionalidad del artículo 21.2 de la Carta, de unainterpretación del artículo 3, apartado 2, de la Directiva 2001/24 que suponga el reconocimiento de efectos de una decisión de la autoridad administrativa competente del Estado miembro de origen que no ha sido publicada en los términos exigidos por el artículo 6, apartados 1 a 4, de la Directiva 2001/24.
9.- En estas circunstancias, este tribunal considera que existen dudas razonables sobre la compatibilidad con el derecho fundamental a la tutela judicial efectiva del artículo 47 de la Carta y el principio general de seguridad jurídica, de una interpretación del artículo 3, apartado 2, de la Directiva 2001/24 que suponga el reconocimientode efectos de una decisión de la autoridad administrativa competente del Estado miembro de origen que ha excluido determinadas obligaciones y responsabilidades de la transmisión a un "banco puente" de la actividad ordinaria y de una serie de elementos patrimoniales del banco al que se aplican las medidas de saneamiento,cuando la propia actuación posterior del "banco puente", controlado por una autoridad pública que aplica el Derecho de la Unión, ha creado en los clientes del Estado miembro de acogida la confianza legítima de que,al asumir el negocio bancario de BES y sustituir a BES en las relaciones jurídicas de este con sus clientes,también había asumido el pasivo correspondiente a las responsabilidades y obligaciones que el banco objeto de la medida de saneamiento tenía respecto de esos clientes.
6.- La garantía de un nivel elevado de protección de los consumidores que establece el artículo 38 de la Carta puede verse comprometido si en unas medidas de resolución, adoptadas en el ámbito de aplicación del Derecho de la Unión, se fragmentan las relaciones contractuales que tales consumidores mantienen con el banco objeto de tales medidas, de modo que se transmiten al "banco puente" las posiciones acreedoras en tales relaciones y se mantienen en el banco inviable las responsabilidades y obligaciones respecto de tales consumidores. En este caso, los demandantes tienen la condición de consumidores pues al invertir sus ahorros en los productos ofertados por BES España actuaron como personas físicas que intervienen en el mercadocon un propósito ajeno a una actividad profesional o comercial. Este problema se plantea también con relacióna la restitución de las cantidades pagadas por los consumidores por la aplicación de cláusulas abusivas, queha sido objeto de una cuestión prejudicial planteada en el recurso 4170/2018.
7.- Este tribunal considera discutible que el derecho a la restitución de las cantidades indebidamente pagadas por un consumidor por la aplicación de una cláusula suelo esté amparado por el derecho de propiedad reconocido en el artículo 17 de la Carta. No obstante, se plantea la posibilidad de que pueda quedar protegido por dicho artículo de la Carta a la vista de la interpretación amplia que el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos ha hecho del objeto protegido en el artículo 1 del protocolo núm. 1 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (en este sentido, sentencias de 20 de noviembre de 1995, caso Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. y otroscontra Belgica, CE:ECHR:1995:1120JUD001784991, apartado 31; 30 de noviembre de 2004, asunto Öneryildizcontra Turquía, CE:ECHR:2004:1130JUD004893999, apartado 124; y 11 de enero de 2007, caso Anheuser-Busch Inc. contra Portugal, CE:ECHR:2007:0111JUD007304901, apartado 63) y de lo previsto en el art. 52.3 de la Carta.
1.- ¿Es compatible con el derecho fundamental a la tutela judicial efectiva del artículo 47 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea (la Carta), el principio general de seguridad jurídica y el principio de igualdad e interdicción de toda discriminación por razón de nacionalidad del artículo 21.2 de la Carta, una interpretación del artículo 3, apartado 2, de la Directiva 2001/24 que suponga el reconocimiento, en un Estado miembro de acogida, de los efectos de una decisión de la autoridad administrativa competente del Estado miembro de origen que no ha sido publicada en los términos exigidos por el artículo 6, apartados 1 a 4, dela Directiva 2001/24?
2.- ¿Es compatible con el derecho fundamental a la tutela judicial efectiva del artículo 47 de la Carta y el principio general de seguridad jurídica, una interpretación del artículo 3, apartado 2, de la Directiva 2001/24 que suponga el reconocimiento, en un Estado miembro de acogida, de los efectos de una decisión de la autoridad administrativa competente del Estado miembro de origen que ha excluido determinadas obligaciones y responsabilidades de la transmisión a un "banco puente" de la actividad ordinaria y de una serie de elementos patrimoniales del banco al que se aplican las medidas de saneamiento, cuando la propia actuación posterior del "banco puente", controlado por una autoridad pública que aplica el Derecho de la Unión, ha creado en los clientes del Estado miembro de acogida la confianza legítima de que había asumido el pasivo correspondiente a las responsabilidades y obligaciones que el banco objeto de la medida de saneamiento tenía respecto de esos clientes?
3.- ¿Es compatible con el derecho fundamental a la propiedad del artículo 17 de la Carta, el principio de elevada protección a los consumidores del artículo 38 de la Carta y el principio general de seguridad jurídica, una interpretación del artículo 3, apartado 2, de la Directiva 2001/24 que suponga el reconocimiento, en un Estado miembro de acogida, de los efectos de una decisión de la autoridad administrativa competente del Estado miembro de origen que transmite a un "banco puente" la posición acreedora en las relaciones contractuales concertadas por el banco objeto de las medidas de saneamiento pero deja en el banco inviable la obligación de restituir al cliente las cantidades pagadas por este en los contratos anulados por el error en el consentimiento provocado por la deficiente información facilitada por el banco?
