By Gustavo Adolfo Gómez Ferré, Barcelona lawyer with a law degree from the Universitat de Barcelona, diploma in International Procedural Law from Universitat Pompeu Fabra, member of the Il·lustre Col·legi de l’Advocacia de Barcelona, and lawyer, director and founder of Bufet Gómez Ferré.
For years, thousands of mortgages in Spain were signed referenced to the IRPH (Mortgage Loan Reference Index) instead of the Euribor. The result: higher monthly payments, thousands of euros overpaid and a growing sense that something was not properly explained. Following the CJEU judgment of 3 March 2020 and the doctrinal reinforcement of July 2023, IRPH claims are more alive than ever. At BUFET GÓMEZ FERRÉ we are lawyers specialised in banking law, and in this article we explain when you can claim a refund of the amounts charged under the IRPH, how to do it correctly and what you can really expect from the process.
IRPH claim: the essentials in 30 seconds
📌Before starting: If you are not yet clear on what exactly the IRPH is, how it is calculated and how it differs from the Euribor, please first consult our initial guide on what is the IRPH and how to know if your mortgage is abusive. In this article we focus exclusively on how to claim and demand a refund.
When can you claim a refund of the IRPH?
The question is not whether the IRPH is “illegal”, because it is an official index; the question is whether the clause that incorporates it into your mortgage passed the double transparency test required by European doctrine.
There are therefore two complementary routes to claim:
1. Lack of transparency at marketing stage
This is the main route and the one with the greatest scope. The bank should have explained to you, clearly and comprehensibly before signing:
- What exactly the IRPH is and how it is calculated (including the fact that it incorporates fees and expenses).
- How the index behaved in the two years prior to signing (historical evolution).
- How it compares with the Euribor, which was the market alternative.
- The real economic consequences of choosing IRPH over Euribor.
If the bank merely referred you to the Bank of Spain circular or to a generic mention in the deed, the clause is most likely not transparent and therefore capable of being declared void.
2. Unfairness due to imbalance
Secondary but relevant route. Although the CJEU has not declared the IRPH unfair in itself, it has admitted that national courts may analyse whether its application, in each specific case, produces a significant imbalance between the parties’ obligations, especially when combined with lack of transparency.
📌Key case law: Since the CJEU judgment of 3 March 2020 (C-125/18, Gómez del Moral), the CJEU has established that the IRPH clause is subject to the transparency test. The CJEU judgment of 13 July 2023 (C-265/22) reinforced this doctrine: the bank should have informed about the historical evolution of the index and the real calculation method (which includes fees and expenses); a mere reference to the Bank of Spain circular is not sufficient.
Indicators that your IRPH mortgage is claimable
Procedure to claim IRPH: step by step
Phase 1: Out-of-court claim
- Document gathering
Mortgage deed, binding offer, information brochure (if kept), loan receipts and amortisation schedule. This is the evidentiary basis of the case.
- Preliminary technical and legal analysis
Your lawyer verifies viability: existence of an IRPH clause, consumer status, indications of lack of transparency and approximate calculation of recoverable amounts.
- Claim to the bank's Customer Service department
Formal letter (preferably by burofax with content certification) requesting the nullity of the clause and the refund of amounts. The bank has 15 business days to reply.
- Claim to the Bank of Spain (optional)
If the bank’s response is not satisfactory, a claim can be filed with the Bank of Spain Claims Service. It is not binding on the bank, but it strengthens the evidentiary position.
- MASC – Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution
Since Organic Act 1/2025, before filing a lawsuit it is mandatory to prove an attempt at out-of-court resolution. A well-drafted burofax can fulfil this function simultaneously.
Phase 2: Court claim
If the bank rejects the claim (which is the norm), an expedited court action (juicio verbal, Art. 250.1.14 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act) must be filed before the specialised court on unfair clauses of your province. The procedure, simplified:
- Filing the claim
Request the nullity of the clause that references the loan to the IRPH and the restitution of amounts overpaid, plus statutory interest.
- Bank's written defence
The bank files a written defence within ten business days, usually arguing transparency and time-bar. The disputed facts are settled with the defence and the evidence (documentary and, where applicable, expert) is taken at the oral hearing itself.
- Oral hearing and evidence
Oral hearing with documentary evidence and, usually, an economic expert report that quantifies the overcost against the Euribor + an alternative margin.
- Judgment
If the claim is upheld, the IRPH clause is declared null and void, replaced by the subsidiary reference index (Euribor + usual margin, or no margin under certain case law) and the bank is ordered to refund the amounts overpaid, plus interest and, usually, court costs.
- Appeals and finality
The bank usually appeals. Following the CJEU judgment of July 2023, the Provincial Courts are largely upholding favourable judgments.
⚠️Time-bar: the nullity action for lack of transparency is imprescriptible, but the restitution action is subject to time limits. The CJEU criterion (joined cases Caixabank and BBVA) sets the dies a quo at the moment when the consumer could have known of the unfairness. Don't wait: the earlier you start the claim, the stronger the evidence and the less room the bank has to plead time-bar.
Case study: IRPH mortgage signed in 2008
| Phase | Detail |
|---|---|
| 📋 Situation | A married couple signs a €180,000 mortgage for 30 years in 2008, referenced to IRPH Cajas + 0.25%. The bank did not deliver any precontractual brochure or explain the historical evolution of the index. When reviewing the receipts, they confirm they have paid significantly higher instalments than neighbours with Euribor. |
| 🔍 Analysis | Bufet Gómez Ferré analyses the deed, receipts and available precontractual documentation. The estimated cumulative overcost is approximately €28,500 compared to a Euribor + 1% reference. Clear indications of lack of transparency exist. |
| ⚡ Action | MASC-compliant burofax to the bank requesting nullity and refund. Following the bank’s refusal, expedited court action (juicio verbal) with an economic expert who quantifies the overcost and compares scenarios. |
| ✅ Outcome | Judgment estimatoria: nulidad de la cláusula IRPH, sustitución por Euríbor + diferencial razonable, devolución de 28.500 € más intereses legales y condena al banco al pago de las costas. Adicionalmente, recálculo del cuadro de amortización con reducción de la cuota mensual. |
| 🔑 Why did it work? | Well-preserved documentation, solid expert evidence, consumer status, total absence of precontractual information about IRPH and direct application of CJEU C-265/22 doctrine. |
💡 Case takeaway: in mortgages signed between 2005 and 2013 with IRPH and no clear precontractual documentation, the viability of the claim is high. The decisive factor is always evidence: documentation, economic expert report and procedural strategy.
Does your mortgage have IRPH? Identify your profile
Every case is different. These are the three most common profiles we see in consultation; identify yours and see the first clues about your situation.
Active mortgage with IRPH Entidades
You are still paying IRPH today. Viable claim and, in addition, immediate reduction of future instalments after the judgment. The most profitable case.
Mortgage cancelled a few years ago
Even if you already paid off the loan, you can claim a refund of the overcost if the restitution action is not time-barred. Case-by-case analysis.
You were offered to replace the IRPH with another clause
If you signed a novation or agreement to change the index, it is essential to review the waiver clause: it may not prevent the claim.
Frequently asked questions
It depends on the loan capital, age, agreed margin and alternative index applied by the court. In mortgages signed between 2005 and 2015, average refunds range from €15,000 to €40,000, sometimes exceeding €60,000 in large or very old loans. To that amount, statutory interest is added and, most importantly, the reduction of future instalments during the remaining term of the loan, which in many cases is worth as much or more than the historical amount claimed.
The essential minimum documentation is: the mortgage public deed, the binding offer (if kept), the precontractual information brochure (if available), loan receipts from recent years and an up-to-date amortisation schedule. If you do not keep the precontractual documentation, that is not a problem: the absence of information is precisely one of the central arguments to prove lack of transparency. The bank is required to produce whatever it has kept.
The nullity action for lack of transparency is imprescriptible: it can be brought at any time. The action for restitution of amounts overpaid, however, is subject to time limits. CJEU doctrine (joined cases Caixabank and BBVA) sets the dies a quo at the moment when the consumer could reasonably have known of the unfairness. In practice, many rulings are computing the period from the CJEU judgment of 13 July 2023, but the issue remains open. Recommendation: do not wait.
A subsequent novation does not automatically prevent the claim. Two key elements must be analysed: whether the novation included a waiver clause not to claim, and whether that waiver is valid (in light of CJEU doctrine on generic waiver clauses). In most novations carried out without individual negotiation, the waiver has been declared void, preserving the consumer’s right to claim the overcost suffered up to the change of index.
If the claim is properly analysed from the outset, the chances of success are high, and in case of victory, costs are usually borne by the bank. At Bufet Gómez Ferré, in many cases we work on a success-fee basis, meaning we only charge if we win. Before starting the procedure we carry out a free viability analysis so that the client knows what they can realistically expect.
Free legal consultation – IRPH claim lawyer in Barcelona
As lawyers specialised in banking law and in IRPH claims in Barcelona, we have an in-depth knowledge of CJEU doctrine and the bank’s usual arguments against these claims. Specialisation makes the difference: incorrect quantification of the overcost, a weak defence against the time-bar argument, or failing to claim other void clauses together can cost you thousands of euros. Request your free initial consultation and we will tell you with no obligation whether your case is viable:
Don’t let more instalments go by while paying an index that is probably void. The earlier you start the claim, the stronger your position and the greater your future savings. Contact us and we will tell you transparently what you can recover and how we will do it.