The judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of March 14, 2013 on the procedural system of evictions in Spain has had a lot of resonance. However, the doctrine of this ruling does not have the scope that some people pretend to give it, making it seem that it solves the status of evictions in Spain.

The problem addressed by the CJEU is as follows: a citizen buys a house with a mortgage credit ; he defaults on part of the installments, and the house is seized; in this seizure, he can only raise certain causes of refusal to pay, among which is not the possible invalidity of the mortgage loan ; if he wants to allege the nullity of this loan, he must go to a different procedure , but in this one the judge will not be able to decree the suspension of the seizure, which will continue; if it is finally demonstrated that the loan was null, the consumer has already been left without housing, and will not be able to recover it. Well, what the ruling states is that Spanish law should allow the judge hearing the dispute over the nullity of the loan to "paralyze" or fail the seizure. Nothing more. It does not state that the consumer can keep the property if he/she does not pay, much less does it say anything about the famous "dación en pago", which many now associate with this ruling when they have absolutely nothing to do with it. It is true that the decision protects the consumer, because it allows him to stop the eviction if he opposes the eviction based on the nullity of loan . But it seems that consumers, and the platforms of those affected, do not mainly want that.

Certainly the Judgment also provides elements to determine when a mortgage loan can be null and void, if the agreed conditions are excessive with respect to the normal (if any minimum breach is enough to terminate, if the late payment interest is excessive, etc.). And, with this, many mortgage loans may be abusive and null and void. But, in final, let us suppose that a consumer who has not paid his mortgage really demonstrates that the loan was null and void: what will he achieve? Well, he will have to refund the money he got from the bank, he will recover the fees he paid (and a possible indemnity), and... he will have to find a way to pay for that house. But, obviously, if he could not pay that loan, he will hardly be able to refund the money, nor keep the house, nor solve his vital problem of "being on the street". In reality, we are only prolonging an agony (and, given the reality, giving false hopes of being able to keep that residency program).

In final, this ruling is not a solution to the real problem of evictions and, at most, what it does is to delay the solution. In the case that originated this decision, it seems that the purchaser of the property contracted a thirty-three year loan , and paid eleven months of the loan, not satisfying the installments since then. Do we solve his "vital" problem by telling him that he can oppose, prove the nullity of the loan -if anything-, and then refund the money? I very much doubt that this will be the case. So, welcome this decision, which gives the consumer a proper right, but let's not misrepresent its real relevance to solving the "problem" of evictions.