Law firm guidesBanking and finance

Your revolving card never goes down: usury and transparency

Last updated 2026-09-01 · Reviewed by Jaime Piñeira Pardo, registered with the ICAM bar, no. 138826

The short answer

You claim that the contract is void for usury, comparing the annual rate applied with the average rate published by the Banco de España, and in the alternative that the interest clause is void for lack of transparency of the revolving mechanism. If usury succeeds, you repay only the capital drawn and the lender returns everything charged above it.

You took out a card in a department store or over the telephone, with a limit of three thousand euros and a fixed instalment of sixty euros a month. Eight years on, you have paid more than five thousand euros and the statement still says you owe two thousand eight hundred. The annual rate in the small print is around twenty four per cent. Nobody explained that the fixed instalment barely covers interest, that each new drawdown restarts the debt and that the capital outstanding may never fall.

The case, in five lines

What is brought: Action to void the revolving credit contract for usury, with an alternative action to void the interest clause for lack of transparency, and a claim for repayment of everything paid above the capital drawn.
Before which court: The Civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first instance court) for the consumer's domicile, with appeal to the Audiencia Provincial (the provincial appeal court).
Deadline: Nullity for usury is radical and is not subject to any lapse period, so it can be sought even if the contract was signed twenty years ago. The claim for the money is a personal action and falls under the five year period of article 1964.2 of the Civil Code, running from when repayment could be demanded.
Who can bring it: The holder of the card or credit and any co holders who signed the contract. Also anyone who guaranteed the operation, and the heirs of a deceased holder who are answerable for the debt.
Financial risk: If the rate applied is close to the market average, the usury claim may fail and an order to pay costs becomes possible, which is why the claim always carries the transparency ground in the alternative. While the case runs, the debt keeps accruing interest unless the contract is suspended.

These are two different attacks and the claim must carry both

The first is usury, which looks at the price: the annual percentage rate applied is compared with the average rate for revolving credit published by the Banco de España in its statistics. The second is transparency, which looks at the information: whether the consumer could understand that the fixed instalment barely repays capital and that the debt may run on indefinitely.

They are pleaded together and in that order because their consequences differ. Usury brings down the whole contract and leaves the consumer owing only the capital drawn. Lack of transparency brings down the interest clause, so the credit survives but at no cost. Dropping either one leaves the case at the mercy of a single numerical test.

The 1908 statute is still alive and does not require desperate straits

Article 1 of the Usury Repression Act declares void any loan contract stipulating interest notably higher than the normal price of money and manifestly disproportionate to the circumstances of the case, or on such terms as to be leonine, where there is reason to believe it was accepted by the borrower because of distress, inexperience or limited mental faculties.

The reading followed by the courts separates those situations: interest notably higher than the normal price of money and manifestly disproportionate is enough, without also having to prove distress. That matters a great deal, because the holder of a revolving card is usually not someone in dire straits but someone who accepted a comfortable instalment without grasping the cost inside it.

The benchmark is the average rate for that product category, not the statutory interest rate or the rate on a mortgage. The First Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo (the Spanish Supreme Court) set the criterion applied today in its judgment 258/2023 of 15 February: the comparison is with the average rate for revolving credit, and a rate exceeding it by six percentage points is usurious.

It makes no difference that the paper says card and not loan

It is a recurring defence from finance companies: to argue that the 1908 statute governs loans while theirs is a card contract, a credit line or deferred payment. Article 9 of that same statute closes the argument by providing that its provisions apply to every operation substantially equivalent to a loan of money.

The article adds that it applies whatever form the contract takes and whatever security has been offered for its performance. In other words, the label the company puts at the top decides nothing: what decides is that money was made available to you to be repaid with a cost. A deferred payment card falls squarely within that definition.

If the contract is usurious, you repay only what you received

Article 3 of the Usury Repression Act is what gives the case its economic value. Once nullity is declared, the borrower is bound to hand over only the sum received, and if part of it and the accrued interest have already been paid, the lender must return to the borrower whatever, counting everything received, exceeds the capital lent.

Translated into the real case: everything drawn on the card is added up against everything paid, including interest, drawdown fees, arrears fees and the premium of any linked insurance. If what was paid exceeds what was drawn, the company owes you the difference. In older contracts with a low instalment, that difference is often larger than the balance the statement still claims.

Even if the rate falls short of usury, the opacity of the system suffices

The second paragraph of article 83 TRLGDCU provides that terms incorporated in a non transparent way in contracts to the detriment of consumers are void of full right. Applied to revolving credit, the opaque term is not the figure of the annual rate but the mechanism: the instalment is recalculated, the capital is rebuilt with each drawdown, and the real repayment period is indeterminate.

Article 82.2 TRLGDCU also allocates the burden of proof: the trader who claims that a given term was individually negotiated must prove it. With a card taken out at a counter or over the telephone, on a pre printed document signed on the spot, that burden is rarely discharged with anything beyond the contract itself.

The judgments of the Full First Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo of 30 January 2025 are the current reference on this transparency review in revolving credit, and the approach taken into the claim comes from them: what pre contractual information was given, on what medium, and whether it allowed the real financial burden of the product to be foreseen.

How we run the case, step by step

1
We gather the contract and the full history of movements
We require the company to produce the signed contract, the pre contractual information and every statement from day one. Without that history there is no quantified case, and the company must keep and hand over those records to a customer who asks for them.
2
We compare the rate applied with the published average
We identify the annual rate applied on the date of contracting and set it against the Banco de España statistics for deferred payment cards in that same period. That comparison decides whether the case runs on usury or only on transparency.
3
We calculate the real balance between drawn and paid
We add up every drawdown against every payment, separating interest, fees and insurance premiums. The result tells us how much is claimed or how much debt disappears, and it is the figure taken into the claim as the amount in dispute.
4
We claim against the company and stop the collection pressure
We put a reasoned claim to the customer service department and give notice that the debt is disputed, which allows us to object to its entry or retention in a credit reference file while the matter is seriously contested.
5
We sue with usury as the principal head of claim
The claim seeks nullity of the contract for usury and, in the alternative, nullity of the interest clause for lack of transparency, plus repayment of the excess charged and removal of any default entry arising from that debt.

The evidence that decides the case

The signed card contract, with the schedule of conditions showing the annual rate on the date of contracting.
The complete run of statements, which allows drawdowns to be set against payments and shows the capital not falling.
The Banco de España statistics on average rates for deferred payment cards in the period when the card was taken out.
The pre contractual information handed over, or the record that the company is unable to produce any.
The recording of the sales call, where the card was taken out by telephone, which usually reveals the sales script.
The certificate of entry in a credit reference file, if the company registered a debt that was under dispute.

What closes the door

Accepting a refinancing or variation with a waiver of claims in order to lower the instalment. One problem is swapped for another and the company will raise that waiver in court.
Simply stopping payment while the claim is being prepared. The debt is entered in credit reference files and the company opens a claim of its own that has to be answered separately.
Pleading usury alone. If the rate falls a point short of the threshold, the whole case collapses for not having sought nullity for lack of transparency in the alternative.
Cancelling the card and throwing away the statements. Without the history of movements there is no way to show how much was drawn and how much paid, which is the heart of the calculation.

The law that applies

Art. 1 de la Ley de Represión de la Usura. Declares void any loan contract stipulating interest notably higher than the normal price of money and manifestly disproportionate to the circumstances of the case, or on such terms as to be leonine, where there is reason to believe it was accepted by the borrower because of distress, inexperience or limited mental faculties. BOE-A-1908-5579
Art. 3 de la Ley de Represión de la Usura. Once nullity is declared, the borrower is bound to hand over only the sum received, and if part of it and the accrued interest have already been paid, the lender must return to the borrower whatever, counting the total received, exceeds the capital lent. BOE-A-1908-5579
Art. 9 de la Ley de Represión de la Usura. Extends the statute to every operation substantially equivalent to a loan of money, whatever form the contract takes and whatever security has been offered for its performance, which covers deferred payment cards and revolving credit lines. BOE-A-1908-5579
Art. 83 TRLGDCU. Unfair terms are void of full right and treated as not written, and the contract survives on the same terms if it can stand without them. Its second paragraph declares void of full right any terms incorporated in a non transparent way to the detriment of consumers. BOE-A-2007-20555
Art. 1964.2 CC. Personal actions with no special period prescribe after five years from the moment performance can be demanded, and in continuing obligations to do or not to do the period starts each time they are breached. This is the period governing the claim to recover the money. BOE-A-1889-4763

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions

Which rate is my annual rate compared with to know if it is usurious?

With the average rate for deferred payment cards published by the Banco de España, not with the statutory interest rate or the rate on a personal loan. The criterion in judgment 258/2023 of the First Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo treats as usurious a rate exceeding that average by six percentage points on the date of contracting.

If the court finds usury, do I have to pay anything back?

Only the capital you actually drew. Article 3 of the Usury Repression Act says the borrower hands over only the sum received and that, if part of it and the accrued interest have been paid, the lender returns whatever exceeds the capital lent. In older contracts the balance usually comes out in your favour.

The company says it is not a loan but a card. Does that help it?

No. Article 9 of the Usury Repression Act applies the statute to every operation substantially equivalent to a loan of money, whatever the form of the contract and the security offered. The name of the product does not change what matters: money was made available to be repaid with a cost spread over time.

I am still paying the card. Should I stop in order to claim?

It is not necessary and usually backfires. Stopping payment triggers an entry in credit reference files and a claim from the company that will have to be answered in parallel. What is worth doing is giving written notice that the debt is disputed, because that affects the lawfulness of such an entry while the case is decided.

Can I claim on a card I cancelled years ago?

Yes. Nullity for usury is radical and does not lapse, so the contract can be declared void even though it is closed. What does have a time limit is recovery of the money, subject to the five years of article 1964.2 of the Civil Code for personal actions, so age affects how much is recovered, not whether you have a case.

This guide explains how the action works in general. It does not replace the study of your own case: deadlines depend on when things happened and on what you have done since.