In general, it is important to specify that arbitration as a means of conflict resolution deprives the access client to the second instance, based on civil jurisdiction and the right to effective judicial protection. The particular case of the swaps, is no exception. On the other hand, obliging banking user to attend an arbitral court situated in a territory other than its home (normally the Arbitration Court of Madrid). Our office they occupy us procedures throughout the national territory, while naturally by our location, most incardinan in the Canary Islands. Tell me the reader if common sense says no Islands banking client, assumes no submission to arbitration as an imposition, and in any case, who favors. However those affected by such situations should not be lead to deception, as not a few colleagues of profession and even associations, proclaim trumpeting the illegality of this type of clause, when it is not so clear. There are a significant number of judgments that, dismissing the declinatorias lodged by BBVA, you retain in its field knowledge of the substance of the matter.
But there are also against it, referring the parties to arbitration. Normally, unless to appreciate bad faith, legal costs, even if not it can be discarded, circumstance which shall inform his client any lawyer that boasts, will not lead to the pronouncement on the pleas and this valuing risk. All decisions on this matter are courts of first instance. Except for one, the Zaragoza Provincial audience that considers the arguments of the Bank (12.02.2010), and in this case Yes those imposed coasts to the demanding user of the nullity of the swap.