The fifth section of the Provincial Court of A Coruña has applied the recent doctrine of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), established in the judgment of 15 October 2026, according to which banking entities may not refuse to immediately refund the amount of an unauthorized payment transaction by hiding behind any possible gross negligence on the part of the client.
The court thus confirms the conviction handed down against Abanca at first instance and maintains the obligation to return 8,874 euros to a client who was a victim of bank fraud.
The ruling emphasizes that the entity cannot refuse to reimburse the charge by alleging the gross negligence of the payer, since that would mean "depriving the obligation of immediate repayment of effectiveness and would go against the purpose of the European directive to ensure a high level of consumer protection".
As for the reality of the fraud suffered by the client, the Provincial Court considers it proven that she was the subject of deception. To reach this conclusion, it relies on the fact that the entity itself recognized, in its response to the claim filed by the user, that the transactions were carried out after third parties accessed the card data. In the view of the judges, the bank "acted against good faith" by denying in the judicial proceedings facts that it had already admitted.
The judgment also recalls that "the liability of payment service providers for unauthorized payment transactions has a quasi-objective nature", so that "they must respond once they are notified of its existence, unless they prove that the user committed fraud". In this case, the Provincial Court highlights that the entity has not provided any evidence that would allow that exceptional circumstance to be appreciated.
The ruling concludes that Abanca "has not complied with its obligation to immediately return the money to its client" and specifies that only when it makes that credit "will it be able to claim reimbursement if it considers that there has been gross negligence on the part of the payer". The ruling is not yet final, since an appeal on points of law may be lodged against it before the Supreme Court.