Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 13 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2018 (629/2018) 对2018年11月13日最高法院判决的评论(629/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.31
Mariano Yzquierdo Tolsada
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 13 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2018 (629/2018)","authors":"Mariano Yzquierdo Tolsada","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.31","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129251745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 26 DE ABRIL DE 2018 (252/2018) 对2018年4月26日最高法院判决的评论(252/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.33
Mariano Yzquierdo Tolsada
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 26 DE ABRIL DE 2018 (252/2018)","authors":"Mariano Yzquierdo Tolsada","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.33","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126629766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO A LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 17 DE ABRIL DE 2018 (222/2018) 对最高法院2018年4月17日判决的评论(222/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.24
Ignacio Farrando Miguel
{"title":"COMENTARIO A LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 17 DE ABRIL DE 2018 (222/2018)","authors":"Ignacio Farrando Miguel","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.24","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128334814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 15 DE OCTUBRE DE 2018 (569/2018) 对2018年10月15日最高法院判决的评论(569/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.12
Jorge Ortega Doménech
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 15 DE OCTUBRE DE 2018 (569/2018)","authors":"Jorge Ortega Doménech","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132071311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 17 DE ABRIL DE 2018 (1281/2017) 对2018年4月17日最高法院判决的评论(1281/2017)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.19
Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa González
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 17 DE ABRIL DE 2018 (1281/2017)","authors":"Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa González","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.19","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129218051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 19 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2018 (725/2018) 对2018年12月19日最高法院判决的评论(725/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.9
F. Trigo
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 19 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2018 (725/2018)","authors":"F. Trigo","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.9","url":null,"abstract":"espanolLa sentencia de la Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo de 19 de diciembre de 2018, razona que el efecto restitutorio derivado del articulo 6.1 de la Directiva 93/13 no es directamente reconducible al articulo 1303 del Codigo civil cuando se trata de la clausula de gastos, en tanto que no son abonos hechos por el consumidor al banco que este deba devolver (como intereses o comisiones), sino pagos hechos por el consumidor a terceros (notario, registrador de la propiedad, gestoria, tasador, etc.), en virtud de la imposicion contenida en la clausula abusiva. En consecuencia, para dar efectividad al tan mencionado articulo 6.1 de la Directiva, en lo que respecta a los intereses que han de devengar las cantidades que debe percibir el consumidor, resulta aplicable analogicamente el articulo 1896 del Codigo civil, puesto que la calificacion de la clausula como abusiva es equiparable a la mala fe del predisponente. Conforme a dicho precepto, cuando haya de restituirse una cantidad de dinero debera abonarse el interes legal desde el momento en que se recibio el pago indebido —en este caso, se produjo el beneficio indebido. EnglishThe Judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of December 19, 2018, reasons that the restorative effect derived from art. 6.1 of Directive 93/13 is not directly applicable to art. 1303 CC when it comes to the clause of expenses, insofar as they are not payments made by the consumer to the bank that he must return (such as interest or commissions), but payments made by the consumer to third parties (notary, property registrar, agency, appraiser, etc.), by virtue of the imposition contained in the abusive Consequently, to give effect to the aforementioned art. 6.1 of the Directive, with regard to the interests that must accrue the amounts that the consumer must receive, it is applicable analogically the art. 1896 CC, since the qualification of the clause as abusive is comparable to the bad faith of the predisponent. According to that precept, when a quantity of money has to be reimbursed, the legal interest must be paid from the moment in which the undue payment was received —in this case, the undue benefit was produced.","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"13 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120914313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 20 DE JULIO DE 2018 (475/2018) 对2018年7月20日最高法院判决的评论(475/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.4
J. Gómez
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 20 DE JULIO DE 2018 (475/2018)","authors":"J. Gómez","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121566485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 15 DE ENERO DE 2018 (17/2018) 对2018年1月15日最高法院判决的评论(17/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.25
Cristina de Amunátegui Rodríguez
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 15 DE ENERO DE 2018 (17/2018)","authors":"Cristina de Amunátegui Rodríguez","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.25","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126768151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 18 DE OCTUBRE DE 2018 (586/2018) 对2018年10月18日最高法院判决的评论(586/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.27
R. G. Hernández
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 18 DE OCTUBRE DE 2018 (586/2018)","authors":"R. G. Hernández","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.27","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116604457","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 13 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2018 (628/2018) 对2018年11月13日最高法院判决的评论(628/2018)
Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.5
A. D. Luelmo
{"title":"COMENTARIO DE LA SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE 13 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2018 (628/2018)","authors":"A. D. Luelmo","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr7f9dp.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":345465,"journal":{"name":"Comentarios a las Sentencias de Unificación de Doctrina. Civil y Mercantil","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122544845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信