If your loan is linked to the Mortgage Loan Reference Index, you've probably been wondering for a while why you're paying more than your friends using the Euribor. In recent years, the IRPH has been the subject of intense legal and financial debate in Spain, with significant progress for those affected and a wave of complaints about lack of transparency.
The issue is no small matter: there are families risking considerable sums and entities awaiting key court decisions. After several European and national rulings, the ground has shifted. Today we tell you, in detail and in plain language, what the IRPH is, why it's usually more expensive, what the courts have said, and What real options do you have to claim or change the index?.
What is the IRPH and how does it affect your mortgage?
Origin and calculation: the official index of the Bank of Spain
The IRPH is an official indicator designed to reflect the average interest rate applied by institutions to mortgage loans. Its methodology is based on data submitted by banks and savings banks, and an average is obtained from them. Unlike the interbank market on which the Euribor is based, the weight here comes from the institutions' own offers to clients, which, in practice, means that the IRPH is usually set at above its most popular alternative.
Why it is usually more expensive than the Euribor
There are two elements that increase its value: on the one hand, the calculation as a simple average of offers over three years, without weighting by size or volume of each entity; on the other, the inclusion of commissions and expenses through the TAEWith this combination, the IRPH has historically shown a higher trajectory than the Euribor.
In the years when the Euribor even sank to negative rates (starting in 2016), the IRPH remained stable between 2% and 1,8%. This difference has meant an estimated overpayment of several thousand euros for many households, with frequent calculations around 20.000 euros additional per mortgage in typical scenarios.
Quick comparison IRPH vs Euribor
To visualize the gap and understand the relationship between mortgages and EuriborLook at this reference table with representative years to get an idea of the differences between the two indices. You'll see that the IRPH tends to be higher, with particularly notable differences during periods of very low Euribor. or negative.
| Year | Euribor (%) | IRPH Entities (%) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,50 | 3,93 | +2,43 |
| 2015 | 0,06 | 2,10 | +2,04 |
| 2020 | -0,50 | 1,83 | +2,33 |
| 2023 | 3,72 | 4,18 | +0,46 |
The reading is clear: the IRPH has been burdened with a recurring overcharge. Although in contexts of sharp increases in the Euribor, the IRPH may move with somewhat less volatility, it is normal for the customer to pay. a higher fee month after month.
Advantages and disadvantages of each index
If you're considering a comparison, it's a good idea to weigh the pros and cons of each benchmark. The Euribor is usually more transparent and cheaper, but it moves with the economic cycle; the IRPH provides a certain stability, although its formula and dependence on trade policies and commissions of the entities themselves make it less favorable to the average consumer.
- Euribor: Greater transparency and, as a rule, lower costs; in return, greater responsiveness to changes in the market and the ECB.
- IRPH: Less volatility in some segments, but a tendency to rise above and problems with clarity of information in its marketing.
How to know if your mortgage is referenced to the IRPH
Today, only the IRPH Entities index remains in effect. Even so, you may have signed up for IRPH Savings Banks or IRPH Banks, and with their disappearance, you were transferred to Entities. To verify this, you have three practical and simple ways to confirm whether your variable interest rate is actually linked to this index and whether it applies. assess claims:
- Check your writing: Locate the interest clause (often in the third clause). Look for descriptions like "average mortgage loan rate for more than three years..."; this usually identifies the IRPH.
- Request a copy from the notary: If you don't have the deed, a simple copy usually costs between 10 and 20 euros. It's faster than requesting one from the bank.
- Examine a receipt: Compare the interest rate charged with what you would pay at the Euribor rate. If you see a persistently high difference, you're likely in the IRPH.
In parallel, it is advisable to gather pre-contractual documentation: information brochure with the evolution of the IRPH for at least the previous two years, its last value available at the time of signing, the Binding offer and any comparative simulation against Euribor with the same differential.
What to do if you have IRPH: extrajudicial and judicial means
Following the European rulings, Spanish judges are required to review whether there was real transparency in the marketing. Before going to court, it is recommended to file a complaint with your bank's Customer Service Department: the Customer Service Department has a two-month period to respond, and if they fail to do so or respond negatively, the complaint will be deemed dismissed. From there, you can file a claim in the competent Court of First Instance and request that the IRPH be removed from the contract, with the return of unduly paid amounts and, in many cases, substitution by Euribor.
If you need advice, several specialized law firms are assisting affected parties and offering claim forms and assistance with negotiation. Some even invite you to resolve questions over the phone; for example, some firms offer a contact number such as 900 264 600 to calculate the potential impact and guide you through the next steps, with the caveat that each case requires specific information. an individual feasibility study.
About calculations and simulations: important warnings
Calculation tools that estimate your potential recovery serve as an approximation. They do not constitute a commitment to future action and depend on the specific facts of each case. A typical simulation example is based on a 25-year, €170.000 mortgage referenced to the IRPH plus a 0,8% spread. The result varies depending on the circumstances of each loan and, therefore, it is not binding.
Furthermore, the hiring of professional services is often subject to prior verification (such as internal conflict of interest policies), and if there is a judicial procedure, the final decision rests with a judge. In short: the calculator figures are a guide, but the legal consequences depend on the individual. your documentation and the judicial criteria.
Legal overview and recent cases on IRPH
Transparency under the microscope: what Europe demands
The Court of Justice of the European Union has set the pace. Its ruling of December 12, 2024, reinforces the idea that the official nature of the IRPH is not enough to overcome the transparency control. Institutions should clearly explain their calculation method, which is based on the APR (which incorporates fees and other expenses), provide information on where to consult its historical evolution, and, where appropriate, take into account the Bank of Spain's 1994 recommendation on the application of a possible "negative differential" to avoid price increases compared to other indices.
This information standard is key: the average consumer must understand the economic effects and functioning of the index. Without this prior education, the clause may be considered abusive and expelled from the contract, with the corresponding restitutionary effects, which may range from recalculation of fees to the return of excess interest.
Rulings in Spain: from replacing the Euribor to cancelling the contract
Following the aforementioned ruling, several bodies have already applied this meticulous control. Among others, decisions by the Provincial Court of Soria (January 16, 2025), the Court of First Instance No. 8 of San Sebastián (March 28, 2025), and the Court of First Instance No. 16 of Murcia (December 2024 and June 30, 2025) have been noted. In practice, some resolutions order the replacement of the IRPH with the Euribor and the return of the overcharge, while, in the case of San Sebastián, at the request of the consumer, it was decided to the total nullity of the loan, with settlement limited to the capital, without interest, and reimbursement of what the client paid from the beginning.
However, not all courts have followed this path. Without a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court following the European ruling, many continue to support the index due to its publication in the Official State Gazette (BOE), so the procedural balance now depends on the facts of the case and how the entities prove the pre-contractual information they provided. A clear position is expected from the Supreme Court, which deliberated on October 1 and is working on a resolution intended to set a standard.
A story of mobilization: victims, lawyers, and the Supreme Court
The movement of affected people has grown hand in hand with citizen platforms and legal professionals. In the past, affected people have been seen posing before the Supreme Court alongside Sumar deputy Félix Alonso Cantorné, highlighting the role of the highest civil court in the history of the IRPH in Spain and the economic impact at stake, estimated at tens of billionsIn this context, attorneys Maite Ortiz and Jose Maria Erausquin have emerged as key figures in the legal battle.
- A key ruling could definitively tip the balance against a clause discussed for its transparency, with jurists such as Ortiz and Erausquin as reference figures.
In fact, the first claim for annulment of an IRPH clause dates back to October 21, 2013, in San Sebastián, brought by IRPH Stop Gipuzkoa representatives with the support of the aforementioned lawyers. The story continues with several European preliminary rulings (among others, cases C-125/18 and C-655/20) and, more recently, with the attendance at the hearing where the judgment of December 12, 2024, was read. Case C-300/23.
Judge Eva Cerón's opinion in Donostia
A significant milestone came with ruling 997/2025, dated March 28, by the Court of First Instance No. 8 of San Sebastián de los Reyes, presided over by Judge Eva Cerón. The ruling declared the third bis clause of a loan with IRPH Cajas void due to abusiveness and concluded that the contract could not subsist without it, granting it a complete nullity. Its reasoning, aligned with the doctrine of the CJEU, emphasizes that the contractual wording omitted the second part of the index definition (which specifies that the APR is used) and did not even provide guidance on a reliable source, such as the Bank of Spain circular or the Official State Gazette (BOE), where it could be verified.
The underlying idea: if transparency requires the client to understand the calculation method and its financial consequences, a clause that does not provide these keys cannot pass muster. For many legal experts, rulings like this set an important practical precedent for how the European standard should be applied in banking contracting.
A look at the Supreme Court: from internal debate to future doctrine
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has been criticized for its strict (and controversial) reinterpretation of EU jurisprudence, with some even going so far as to speak of prevarication. Its most recent position was that no IRPH clause was per se unfair and that it wasn't even necessary to analyze the wording or the information provided to the consumer. With Ignacio Sancho at the helm, many expect a shift toward complying with the European mandate to analyze each case individually and apply the CJEU criteria to each contract. If this is done, some jurists predict that most clauses could be considered unfair. non-transparent.
It remains to be seen how this approach will be reflected in the ruling that the Supreme Court is finalizing and which, according to close sources, could be published imminently. The result is crucial: it will affect thousands of ongoing proceedings and those yet to come, with effects ranging from the replacement by Euribor to the possible cancellation of contracts when it is not viable to maintain them without the variable interest clause.
Real possibilities when claiming: documentation and scenarios
If when signing your loan you weren't given the choice between IRPH and Euribor, weren't shown comparisons, or weren't provided with key materials (a brochure with the two-year IRPH evolution, its latest value at the time of signing, a binding offer, and simulations), you have a good starting point to explore options. In cases where the information was insufficient or nonexistent, the courts can declare the clause void: this opens the door to recover interest, reduce the fee and, depending on the situation, switch to Euribor or consider the contract to be completely null and void.
The typical steps involve filing a claim with the SAC (Security and Commercial Banking Authority) and, if appropriate, suing. Those who don't want to litigate can try to negotiate a novation to switch to Euribor or consider subrogation with another bank that offers better terms. The statute of limitations is not clear in all cases, so it's advisable to seek legal advice. move your piece as soon as possible to maximize options.
User experiences and complaint models
There are those affected who tried to manage on their own and encountered obstacles. A first-person case highlights the help received in a restructuring with a large entity, including support with a IRPH claim form for CaixabankThis type of testimonial highlights the importance of specialist intervention when the bank makes the process difficult or offers no alternatives. clear and comparable.
Macro impact and costs for the sector
Beyond each mortgage, the IRPH has eroded confidence in the marketing of complex financial products and has led to a cascade of litigation. The sector has been forced to improve transparency and assume legal costs, while the regulator has promoted regulatory adjustments so that consumers can accurately assess the consequences of indices that include commissions and expenses in its formula.
Alternatives if you don't want to go to court
If you'd rather avoid lawsuits, consider negotiating a novation with your bank to switch to Euribor, or consider offers from other banks and transfer your mortgage. Some banks agree to revise the terms to retain you, but check the fine print and do the math: the goal is for the change to actually reduce your monthly payment and not involve new costs that would negate the savings. A professional can help you. simulate scenarios and assess the convenience of the agreement.
Corporate note and professional coverage
Some law firms report that their recovery calculations do not commit to any results and that each contract requires a prior feasibility analysis and compliance with their conflict of interest policy. They also point out that, in the event of a dispute, the resolution is the responsibility of the court. Some of these firms have lawyers registered with multiple provincial bar associations, such as those of Alzira, Ávila, Alicante, Almería, the Balearic Islands, Barcelona, Bilbao, Cádiz, Girona, Granada, Huesca, La Rioja, Las Palmas, Madrid, Málaga, Murcia, Oviedo, Pamplona, Pontevedra, Seville, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Tarragona, Valencia, Valladolid, and Vigo, abbreviated as ICAALZIRA, ICAAVILA, ICALI, ICAALMERIA, ICAIB, ICAB, ICASV-BILBAO, ICADIZ, ICAG, ICAGR, ICAHUESCA, ICAR, ICALPA, ICAM, ICAMALAGA, ICAMUR, ICAOVIEDO, MICAP, ICAPONTEVEDRA, ICAS, ICATF, ICAT, ICAV, ICAVA, ICAVIGO.
The IRPH isn't a topic to be put on the back burner: if your deed includes it, there's much to be gained by clarifying what information you were given, comparing it with the Euribor, and assessing out-of-court or judicial actions. With a thorough analysis of documents and the right strategy, you can reduce your tax, claim refunds, and finally close this chapter with a fair solution for your pocket.
