Supreme Court Case Law on Unfair Contract Terms 2025: Key Rulings
Summary of the most relevant Supreme Court and CJEU rulings on unfair contract terms in 2025. IRPH, early termination, default interest, and floor clauses.
# Supreme Court Case Law on Unfair Contract Terms 2025: Key Rulings
The control of unfair terms in banking and consumer contracts remains one of the most active areas of Spanish case law. In 2025, the TS and CJEU have issued rulings consolidating doctrine on critical matters for lawyers in banking, mortgage, and consumer law.
1. IRPH: Current State
Following CJEU C-125/18 (2020), the TS has established the dual transparency test for IRPH: formal transparency (index clearly defined in contract) and material transparency (consumer could know the IRPH variation mechanism compared to Euribor). Merely referencing IRPH without comparison or historical explanation typically crosses the opacity threshold.
2. Early Termination: Post-Law 5/2019 Consolidation
2025 TS rulings consolidate that declaring an unfair early termination clause void does not prevent foreclosure continuation if the default would justify it under Art. 24 (Law 5/2019). Simple void clause declaration no longer automatically stays foreclosure in many cases.
3. Default Interest
The TS maintains default interest exceeding the remunerative rate by more than 2 points is presumptively unfair. Divergence with CJEU on substitution mechanism continues generating uncertainty in lower courts.
4. Floor Clauses: Limitation Pending CJEU
The TS has referred a preliminary ruling to the CJEU on whether limitation periods for restitution claims are compatible with Directive 93/13. Response expected 2026. Document when the client effectively became aware of the clause to argue the limitation starting point.
5. Opening Fee
Following CJEU C-6/22 (2024), the TS has nuanced its position: the opening fee is subject to dual transparency control but exempt from content control if it passes formal transparency. Nullity actions require proving insufficient pre-signing information.
6. Revolving Credit Cards
TS doctrine compares revolving card APR with the market average for similar operations. In 2025, the TS clarified that a difference exceeding 6 percentage points is a relevant indicator of usury, not an automatic threshold.
Using Lexiel for Unfair Terms Research
Lexiel has indexed all relevant TS and TC rulings with CENDOJ-verified citations. Search by case number, date, or subject matter, and contrast TS doctrine with CJEU positions.
Try Lexiel free · 28 days
Use code LEX-BLOG for double the standard trial period. Cancel anytime, no commitment.