Requesting banking documents is a frequent need for thousands of Spanish consumers. Moreover, the Plenary of Spain’s Supreme Court has settled a recurring debate. The question was clear. When a client requests a copy of their contract to prepare a lawsuit, which procedural route should they use? Therefore, the Supreme Court’s answer establishes clear doctrine.
The core problem
Anyone who has tried to obtain a duplicate of their contract knows it is not easy. It is true that the financial entity has a legal obligation to provide it. However, in practice, these requests often go unanswered.
When this silence forces litigation, a procedural dilemma arose. On one hand, an ordinary lawsuit could be filed to demand the documents. On the other hand, preliminary proceedings could be requested. Consequently, courts applied very different criteria. This lack of unification affected deadlines, costs and jurisdiction.
What happened in the case
A consumer domiciled in Almería requested duplicate contracts and statements from a consumer credit finance company. After several failed attempts, the consumer filed an ordinary lawsuit in Almería.
However, the court declared itself incompetent and referred the case to Barcelona. Barcelona also refused competence and raised a jurisdictional issue before the Supreme Court. At that moment, the Plenary detected a previous problem. In fact, the client was not using the correct procedure.
What the Supreme Court says
The Plenary’s conclusion is decisive. If the objective is to obtain banking documentation, the only valid route is preliminary proceedings.
Consequently, the reasoning is very coherent. Preliminary proceedings allow obtaining essential data before litigation. Using a long ordinary trial to obtain simple documents makes no sense. In fact, the ruling clarifies that a declaratory procedure cannot be used to prepare another declaratory procedure.
Furthermore, the Court recalls that the legal catalog is closed. However, flexible interpretation is admitted. For this reason, the request fits within the exhibition of possessed items.
Requesting banking documents: what changes in practice
Applying preliminary proceedings directly benefits the client through four key advantages:
- No prior mediation: Mandatory prior mediation is not required. Therefore, time is saved from day one.
- Cap on the caution deposit: The amount required will not exceed the bank’s usual commission. Additionally, this cap prevents the mechanism from becoming inaccessible.
- No loss of caution: If the documentation reveals no grounds to sue, the client can desist without losing the deposit.
- Consumer’s home court: The consumer can file the request in their own municipality, without traveling to the bank’s headquarters.
A ruling meant to endure
This Plenary decision establishes explicit doctrine. In a context of high banking claims, this unification provides legal certainty. Moreover, it benefits both clients and entities. Therefore, it avoids the exhaustion of doubting the correct procedural route.
For clients, the message is direct. A specific procedural route exists: agile and cost-effective. Furthermore, after the Plenary’s Ruling, requesting banking documents through preliminary proceedings is the only option available.
