The 61st Chamber of the Supreme Court has rejected the complaint filed by Arriaga asociados, for lack of credibility and verisimilitude. Four magistrates of Chamber 1 of the High Court were accused of crimes of prevarication and coercion in relation to two rulings on the IRPH mortgage index of a bank.
Among the terms of the complaint is the practice of diligences that were carried out between the magistrates and banking entities, in addition, an investigation for "possible bribes" was included.
Therefore, due to the lack of grounds, a possible breach of the elementary rules of good faith in the procedure has been considered according to the Article 247 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result of this event, new proceedings have been opened in order to examine whether there is an abuse of rights on the part of the plaintiffs. The complainants have also been ordered to pay the costs of the judgment against them.
The plaintiffs have accused two judgments that were upheld in relation to a banking institution and that did not invalidate the IRPH index of the loan contracts that were analysed in them of "prevaricating", understanding that the judges who have been sued have unjustifiably set aside the grounds already defined by the CJEU to analyse the transparency and abuse of the IRP.
According to the 61st Chamber, "an examination of the judicial decisions handed down by the judges who brought the case allows this Chamber to conclude that the alleged facts are not criminally relevant. In the present case, contrary to what the plaintiff maintains, these judicial decisions were limited to interpreting the rulings made by the CJEU in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling and to responding to the claims formulated in the appeals lodged.
And, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them, the decisions in question contain legal arguments that cannot be described as unreasonable, arbitrary or illogical in the terms set out above. On the contrary, they provided a well-founded response, following an analysis of the claims made and/or the arguments put forward as grounds for the appeals lodged".
The plaintiff," adds the order, "maintains a discrepant interpretation of the disputed issues analysed in the resolutions issued by the accused magistrates, which, in his opinion, would justify the commission of the crime of prevarication. Thus, the complaint is, in reality, an appeal against these rulings. Although it is well known, it must be reiterated that this Special Chamber is not a review body for the activity of other chambers, neither by means of an appeal (which does not exist) nor, even less so, by means of the presentation of a complaint".
Regarding the crime of coercion, it is pointed out that the complaint has not provided objective data or evidence "apart from the subjective appraisals of the plaintiff", which "reveals a sort of agreement between the different judges of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court, to intentionally favour the banking entities".
"This version of what happened lacks the slightest credibility (in fact, it can be described as absolutely implausible), since the mere existence of alternative and differing interpretations or even the raising of new questions for preliminary rulings does not allow us to understand, from a logical and rational perspective, that there could have been this sort of conspiracy between the judges of a chamber of the Supreme Court, which is revealed in the complaint, to act against the interests of consumers, that there could have been a kind of conspiracy between the judges of a chamber of the Supreme Court, which is revealed in the complaint, to act against the interests of consumers, and even less so, by using psychological coercion against them", the decision concludes. The Chamber, which is made up of the President of the Supreme Court, the Presidents of Chambers and the most senior and most junior judges in each of them, is regulated by the Article 61 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary.
Source: Legal news.
