In Spain, the review of mortgage agreements linked to the IRPH index continues. In particular, Court of First Instance No. 16 in Murcia has declared several provisions void that banks used when issuing home loans. These decisions were based on the insufficient information provided to clients regarding how the index works and its impact on payments.
The courts refer to the position established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in December 2024. European judges clarified that banks are required to provide complete and clear information about how the IRPH is calculated and how it differs from other indices, such as the Euribor. If a client did not receive comprehensive explanations, the terms are considered imposed and must be revoked. As a result, banks are forced to reimburse borrowers for all excess amounts paid over the life of the loan, taking accrued interest into account.
The specifics of IRPH application and its consequences for borrowers
The IRPH index was long considered an alternative to the Euribor for mortgage loans. However, its calculation formula often resulted in higher payments for clients. The Murcia court noted that banks did not always provide borrowers with key documents—such as the mandatory offer or preliminary calculations—which prevented them from comparing conditions with other options. If the clause on applying IRPH is ruled invalid, the loan is recalculated using a different index, and the bank must compensate for the difference.
The role of CJEU decisions and the practice of Spanish courts
The position of the European court marked a turning point for legal proceedings in Spain. Now, simply including the IRPH in official documents is not enough—banks must explain to clients how this index affects their payments. If explanations are missing or incomplete, courts deem such terms invalid. Several rulings have already been issued in Murcia: in some cases, courts ordered banks to return significant sums; in others, they found that the bank had met information requirements if it provided all necessary documents and explanations.
Differences in court rulings and assessment criteria
In December 2024, a court in Murcia declared the IRPH provision invalid and ordered the bank to recalculate the loan based on Euribor with a markup, as well as to return more than 17,000 euros to the client. In June 2025, a similar ruling addressed not only IRPH but also other disputed terms—for example, rounding up payments and calculating interest based on the 360/365 day formula. At the same time, in February 2025, the court refused to declare the terms invalid, since the bank had provided the client with a full set of documents, including references to official regulations and detailed calculations.
An individual approach to each contract
Court practice shows that not all loans with IRPH are automatically declared invalid. Each case is considered individually: courts analyze whether all necessary information was provided and whether the client could understand the economic consequences of choosing this index. The European Court did not find the index itself unlawful, but required national courts to verify the transparency of the terms. If the bank merely referred to the index’s publication in the official bulletin, this is insufficient — the borrower must receive explanations about the calculation method and potential risks.
Judges pay attention to the presence of a mandatory offer, preliminary calculations, and whether the specific features of IRPH compared to Euribor were explained. If this information was missing, courts deem the terms invalid, recalculate payments, and require banks to return overpayments with interest. However, if the bank provided all documentation and explanations, the terms are considered transparent and remain in force. Thus, the validity of the terms is determined individually, based on the circumstances of each contract.
Other contentious clauses in mortgage agreements
In addition to IRPH, Spanish courts often declare other terms of loan agreements invalid, such as administrative fees, payment rounding, calculating interest using the 360/365-day formula, as well as excessive late payment penalties. All these issues can be addressed within a single lawsuit, allowing borrowers to challenge several disputed provisions at once.
