La esperada STJUE de 3.3.2020 relativa a la cláusula IRPH no ha arrojado gran claridad respecto al criterio a adoptar por jueces y tribunales nacionales y, a mayor abundamiento, sus conclusiones no se alejan fundamentalmente de la postura mantenida por la STS 14.12.2017. En consecuencia, la STJUE 3.3.2020 no ha conseguido eliminar la disparidad y heterogeneidad de criterios entre nuestros órganos judiciales. Para comprender apropiadamente las discrepancias que suscita la validez o no de la indexación del préstamo al índice IRPH analizaremos, en primer lugar, la exégesis de la controversia, desde la STS 14.12.2017 hasta la STJUE 3.3.2020. Acto seguido, realizaremos un estudio pormenorizado de la evolución de las obligaciones informativas existentes en materia de índices de referencia en préstamos con la finalidad de determinar qué información precontractual debía ser facilitada a los prestatarios para dar por cumplidos los parámetros indicados por la STJUE 3.3.2020. Tras ello, procederemos a analizar las posibles interpretaciones y criterios que, de conformidad con la normativa estudiada y la doctrina especializada, cabría adoptar tras la STJUE 3.3.2020. Finalmente, expondremos y analizaremos críticamente las posturas adoptadas hasta el momento por la llamada jurisprudencia menor, para acabar exponiendo las conclusiones alcanzadas.

—

Transparency requirement of terms setting a reference index and their effects. The IRPH term in the so-called minor jurisprudence after the JCJEU 3.3.2020

The expected judgment of the CJEU of 3.3.2020 on the IRPH term has not yielded great clarity regarding the criteria to be adopted by national judges and courts. Furthermore, JCJEU 3.3.2020 conclusions do not fundamentally depart from the position maintained by the Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court of 14.12.2017. Consequently, the JCJEU 3.3.2020 has failed to eliminate the disparity and heterogeneity of criteria between Spanish judges. To properly understand the discrepancies caused by eventual unfairness of contractual terms setting a reference index (IRPH) for calculating the variable interest of a loan in Spain, we will first analyze the exegesis of the controversy, from Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court of 14.12.2017 to JCJEU of 3.3.2020. Subsequently, we will carry out a detailed study of the evolution of borrowers reporting obligations in Spain, in relation to loan indexes, in order to determine what kind of pre-contractual information should have been provided to the borrowers to fulfill the parameters indicated by JCJEU 3.3.2020. After that, we will proceed to analyze the possible interpretations and criteria that, in accordance with the studied regulations and specialized doctrine, could be adopted after JCJEU 3.3.2020. Finally, we will expose and critically analyze the positions adopted so far by the so-called minor jurisprudence and we will present the conclusions reached.