In a resolution dated April 4, 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal and stated that it would not review the abusive floor clause ruled before the judgment of the European Court recognizing the total retroactivity of the nullity of the floor clauses. According to the judgment of the European Court dated December 2016 those affected by the floor clauses could receive all of what was unduly collected and not only from May 2013 onwards but from the date on which the credit was granted.
This is the result of a lawsuit filed by claimants who had previously obtained a final and favourable decision before December 2016 and condemn the bank to refund the amounts illegitimately collected only from May 2013 onwards, requesting a review of the judgment so that the effects of the judgment could be retroactive until the date of subscription of the credit. It was alleged that the ECJ judgment should allow for full retroaction because that judgment would be considered as a document to the purposes of a review.
For the Supreme Court it is not possible to obtain a review of a final judgment on the grounds that a subsequent judgment that establishes jurisprudence incompatible with the arguments of the previous one. This later judgment is not a "document" for the purposes of the provisions of the Civil Proceedings Law for reviewing a judgment.
Surely there will be legal opinions for and against the “res judicata” argument totally valid. May be these amounts can be reclaimed through unjust enrichment. The action of unjust or enrichment or “lack of cause enrichment” is intended to restore the balance altered by displacement without justification. For its exercise, the following requirements or budgets must be fulfilled: 1) Enrichment of the defendant; 2) Impoverishment of the actor; 3) Causal relationship or perfect connection between enrichment and impoverishment and 4) Lack of cause, that is, that enrichment has no reason and is unfair. But this is just an idea.