Text: The Spanish Supreme Court forced CaixaBank to return almost 95 thousand euros to six families (nine cooperative members) who handed over large sums to a cooperative to access housing that ended up not being completed. The decision, which reinstates the conviction set in the first instance, rejects the bank’s argument that there was no obligation to guarantee the values as it was not a purchase of full property, but rather a surface right for 75 years (which, in practice, granted them use for that period).
The sentence clarifies that the protection conferred by Law 57/1968 applies whenever the housing purpose is at stake, even when the legal framework does not correspond to a classic purchase and sale. At issue are advances paid by families who wanted to secure a long-term residential solution and who were left without the property and the money.
According to the Spanish website Noticias Trabajo, which specializes in labor and legal matters, the Supreme Court considered that the bank was aware of the destination of the amounts delivered and failed in its legal duty of vigilance by allowing these amounts to be deposited without the guarantees required by law.
The case began in 2013 and dragged on for years
According to the ruling identified as STS 1980/2025, it all started in 2013, when nine people handed over amounts between 10,000 and 18,000 euros each to access housing promoted by a cooperative. The particularity of the process was the legal model adopted: the cooperative did not own the land, but held a surface right for 75 years over a municipal plot.
The promotion ended up failing and the land returned to the municipality. Despite this, the bank refused to return the amounts delivered, leading the cooperative members to go to court. Initially, the court of first instance ruled in favor of the families, but the Madrid Provincial Hearing would later acquit CaixaBank.
According to the decision that was then revoked, Law 57/1968 would only protect the purchase of housing under freehold ownership, and would not cover contracts for the transfer of use for an extended period, described as similar to a very long-term lease.
Supreme Court corrects interpretation and reinforces consumer protection
The Supreme Court chose to correct this restrictive reading of the law. The judges emphasize that Law 57/1968 applies to the promotion of all types of housing, including projects under a cooperative regime and constructions based on surface rights.
For the Supreme Court, when a family makes a significant down payment and commits to costs associated with a long-term housing solution, the purpose is unequivocally residential. The legal framework of the contract does not eliminate this reality or reduce the level of legal protection.
“The bank knew or had to know”
One of the central points of the decision relates to CaixaBank’s role as the entity receiving the funds. The Supreme Court considers it proven that the bank was aware of the destination of the amounts, as it managed the receipts, issued receipts with explicit references to “housing contributions” and accepted transfers with descriptions such as “reserve” or “initial entry”.
According to the same source, by allowing these amounts to be deposited in an ordinary account, without requiring the opening of a special account and the legally provided guarantees, CaixaBank failed to fulfill the duty of vigilance imposed by law.
The bank also tried to remove legal protection by claiming that some of the cooperative members owned other properties, such as vacation homes or inherited homes. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, remembering that the existence of other assets does not automatically eliminate the need for habitual residence nor does it, in itself, remove legal protection.
Return of principal and interest included
With this decision, the Supreme Court obliges CaixaBank to return the capital contributed by families and to pay interest from the date of each delivery, reflecting the loss suffered over more than a decade.
According to , the decision could influence other similar processes, reinforcing the idea that banking institutions cannot ignore the destination of funds when this purpose is clear and documented, even outside traditional models.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, the framework is not identical to the Spanish one. Cooperatives in the housing and construction sector are governed, in particular, by Decree-Law no. 502/99 and the Cooperative Code (Law no. 119/2015), and housing projects also depend on the regime applicable to the licensing and execution of urban operations (RJUE).
As there is no mechanism directly equivalent to that provided for in Spanish Law 57/1968, the eventual recovery of values and responsibilities tends to depend on the model adopted (cooperative regime, statutes and signed documents) and the applicable general rules, including civil liability and consumer protection, assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Also read:
