New Constitutional Court ruling confirming that banks must pay legal costs when a consumer wins cases involving abusive mortgage clauses

An important judicial boost for consumers against the banking sector. The Constitutional Court has confirmed that banks must bear legal costs when a consumer wins proceedings related to abusive mortgage clauses.

The decision represents a further step forward in protecting those affected by abusive clauses in mortgage loans and strengthens consumers’ rights, recognised in both Spanish and European legislation, to bring claims without fear of incurring legal expenses.

Judgment 30/2026 of the Constitutional Court

This is established in Judgment 30/2026 of 13 April, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) on 15 May, in which the Constitutional Court examines the case of a consumer whose mortgage was enforced by BBVA through an early maturity clause that was later declared abusive.

Although both the court of first instance and the Provincial Court ultimately dismissed the mortgage enforcement proceedings, they initially decided not to order the bank to pay the legal costs, forcing the affected party to bear part of the expenses of the process.

The Constitutional Court has now corrected this approach and made it clear that this practice violates the fundamental right to effective judicial protection recognised in Article 24 of the Constitution.

What does this ruling mean?

Until now, in some cases courts avoided ordering financial institutions to pay legal costs, even when the consumer obtained partial success in their claim. This forced many affected individuals to bear part of the costs of the judicial process, reducing the economic benefit of the claim.

With this new position of the Constitutional Court, the idea is reinforced that consumers should not be financially disadvantaged for asserting their rights against abusive clauses imposed by banks.

In other words, if the bank acted abusively and the customer wins the case, the institution must also cover the costs of the proceedings.

A clear message to financial institutions

The ruling has significant implications not only for those already bringing claims, but also for future lawsuits. The Court sends a clear message: financial institutions cannot benefit from abusive practices or hinder consumers’ access to justice.

This approach aims to prevent fear of paying solicitors, barristers or legal costs from discouraging affected individuals from pursuing legitimate claims.

Who can benefit?

This decision may benefit consumers who have brought or are considering bringing claims relating to:

• Mortgage arrangement costs
• Floor clauses
• IRPH index
• Abusive fees
• Excessive default interest
• Financial products linked to mortgages

For many affected individuals, this ruling provides greater legal certainty and an incentive to recover amounts paid unfairly.

Consumers should not have to pay to defend their rights

The Court recalls that both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Spanish Supreme Court had already established doctrine on this issue: when a consumer wins litigation concerning abusive clauses, they should not be required to bear legal costs.

According to the judgment, requiring the affected party to bear part of the costs reduces the effective protection granted by European consumer law and creates a clear deterrent effect.

In other words, many people might refrain from bringing claims for fear of having to face financial costs, even when the banking clause is unlawful or abusive.

The importance of making a claim

Judicial decisions in recent years have shown that consumers are increasingly protected against abusive banking practices. Therefore, if you believe your mortgage includes unclear clauses or unfair conditions, it is advisable to review your case and consider making a claim.

Now, with the backing of the Constitutional Court regarding legal costs, bringing a claim may be less risky and far more accessible for thousands of families.