Opinion of the Advocate General

[Joywtseo421]

On May 9, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled and considered the floor clauses to be abusive . It argued that consumers had not been properly informed about the consequences of these clauses. However, it limited the effects of the declaration of nullity of these clauses, which only have retroactive effects until the date on which the sentence was issued. In other words, claims can be made from May 9, 2013.

This limitation on the retroactivity of its effects is based on the principle of legal certainty.


A ruling of 25 March 2015 of the Supreme Court confirmed this limitation on retroactivity and limited the restitution obligation only to the amounts unduly paid after the ruling of 9 May 2013.

Many consumers claimed the amounts paid unduly since the conclusion of their switzerland business mailing list credit contracts. Thus, the Commercial Court of Granada and the Provincial Court of Alicante referred a preliminary question to the CJEU on the limitation of the effects of the declaration of nullity from the date on which the Supreme Court's judgment was issued and its compatibility with the Directive on unfair terms.

On 13 July 2016, the conclusions of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union were made public and he agreed with the limitation of the retroactivity of the effects of the declaration of nullity of the floor clauses.

It considers that such a limitation is compatible with Union law, based on the macroeconomic repercussions that the retroactive effect may have.

CJEU ruling
The judgment of December 21, 2016 of the CJEU rules in favor of the retroactivity of floor clauses .

The preliminary question raised by the Spanish courts concerns the interpretation of Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.


Regarding the limitation of the effects of the nullity of the floor clauses established by the Supreme Court, the CJEU alleges in consideration 72: