FAIRNESS METRICS IN FINANCIAL GOVERNANCE IN SPAIN

1. Introduction

Fairness Metrics in Financial Governance refer to the standards, principles, indicators and assessment mechanisms used to determine whether financial institutions operate fairly, transparently, equally and responsibly towards customers, investors, employees and other stakeholders.

In Spain, fairness in financial governance is closely connected with constitutional principles, European Union financial regulations, consumer protection legislation, banking supervision, data protection requirements and corporate governance standards.

Financial institutions such as commercial banks, credit institutions, insurance companies, investment firms and fintech companies are expected to ensure that their policies and financial decisions do not result in unjustified discrimination, exploitation, misleading practices or unequal treatment.

Fairness metrics provide a systematic approach to measuring the fairness of financial decisions. They help regulators and financial institutions assess whether lending policies, credit-risk assessments, investment products, financial services and automated decision-making systems operate in a transparent and equitable manner.

Spain's financial governance framework is influenced by European Union legislation, particularly the Capital Requirements framework, MiFID II, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), consumer protection legislation and banking supervisory standards established by the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Banking Authority (EBA) and Banco de España.

2. Meaning and Concept of Fairness Metrics

Fairness metrics are measurable indicators used to evaluate whether financial decisions and institutional practices comply with principles of equality, proportionality, transparency, accountability and non-discrimination.

In financial governance, fairness is not limited to treating every customer identically. It also requires examining whether different groups experience unjustified disadvantages because of their economic position, gender, age, disability, nationality, geographical location or other characteristics.

For example, when a Spanish bank evaluates loan applications, it may consider income, employment stability, repayment history and existing financial obligations. However, its credit assessment procedures should not introduce unjustified discriminatory outcomes.

Fairness metrics can be divided into the following categories:

A. Equal Treatment Metrics

These metrics assess whether customers and financial stakeholders receive equal treatment under comparable circumstances.

Examples include:

Equal access to banking services.

Consistent loan approval standards.

Equal treatment of customers with similar financial profiles.

Prevention of discriminatory lending practices.

Fair access to financial products and services.

B. Transparency Metrics

Transparency metrics measure whether financial institutions adequately disclose the conditions, risks, costs and consequences of their financial products.

Examples include:

Disclosure of interest rates.

Explanation of loan repayment conditions.

Transparency in mortgage agreements.

Disclosure of investment risks.

Clear communication of commissions and additional charges.

C. Procedural Fairness Metrics

Procedural fairness examines whether financial decisions are made through consistent, objective and reviewable procedures.

Examples include:

Proper examination of loan applications.

Availability of complaint mechanisms.

Clear reasons for rejecting financial applications.

Independent review of disputed decisions.

Appropriate human supervision of automated decisions.

D. Distributive Fairness Metrics

Distributive fairness evaluates whether financial benefits, costs, risks and opportunities are distributed fairly among different stakeholders.

For example, financial institutions should examine whether certain customer groups systematically receive less favourable credit conditions without legitimate justification.

E. Algorithmic Fairness Metrics

Modern Spanish financial institutions increasingly use artificial intelligence, machine learning and automated credit-scoring systems.

Algorithmic fairness metrics examine whether these systems generate discriminatory or systematically disadvantageous outcomes.

Relevant indicators include:

Demographic parity.

Equal opportunity.

Equalised odds.

Predictive equality.

Calibration.

False-positive and false-negative rates.

Explainability and accountability.

These metrics are useful for identifying potential discrimination in automated financial decision-making.

3. Legal Framework Governing Fairness in Financial Governance in Spain

A. Spanish Constitution of 1978

The Spanish Constitution establishes the fundamental principles that support fairness in financial governance.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on specified grounds.

Article 9(2) requires public authorities to promote conditions ensuring that equality is real and effective.

Article 38 recognises freedom of enterprise within the framework of the market economy.

Article 51 requires public authorities to protect consumers and users.

These constitutional provisions provide an important foundation for fair banking practices, consumer protection and equal access to financial services.

B. Spanish Banking Legislation

Spanish banking legislation establishes requirements relating to the organisation, supervision and responsible operation of credit institutions.

Law 10/2014 on the Organisation, Supervision and Solvency of Credit Institutions establishes important requirements concerning banking supervision, governance and institutional responsibility.

Royal Decree 84/2015 develops aspects of the implementation of Law 10/2014.

These rules support sound management, internal controls, responsible governance and the protection of the financial system.

C. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 is particularly important where financial institutions use personal information to assess creditworthiness.

Article 5 establishes principles including lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation and data minimisation.

Article 13 and Article 14 establish information requirements.

Article 22 provides safeguards concerning certain decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling, where the decision produces legal effects or similarly significant effects.

Financial institutions must therefore ensure that automated credit decisions comply with applicable data protection requirements.

D. Consumer Credit and Mortgage Protection

Law 16/2011 on Consumer Credit Contracts establishes important protections for consumers entering into credit agreements.

Law 5/2019 regulating Real Estate Credit Contracts strengthens transparency and consumer protection in mortgage lending.

These legislative instruments support fair treatment through information disclosure, contractual transparency and responsible lending requirements.

E. MiFID II and Investor Protection

Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) establishes important requirements concerning investment services and investor protection.

Its provisions address:

Fair treatment of investment clients.

Suitability and appropriateness assessments.

Conflicts of interest.

Product governance.

Transparency of investment costs.

Protection of retail investors.

These requirements are relevant to Spanish investment firms and financial institutions providing investment services.

4. Major Fairness Metrics Used in Spanish Financial Governance

A. Credit Allocation Fairness

Credit allocation fairness measures whether financial institutions distribute credit opportunities according to legitimate financial criteria.

Banks should ensure that loan approval procedures do not create unjustified disadvantages for particular customer groups.

Important indicators include:

Loan approval rates.

Rejection rates.

Interest-rate differences.

Credit accessibility.

Differences in lending conditions.

Default-risk assessment accuracy.

B. Interest Rate Fairness

Interest-rate fairness examines whether customers are charged reasonable and appropriately disclosed interest rates.

Financial institutions should ensure that interest rates are determined according to legitimate factors such as credit risk, market conditions, funding costs and contractual terms.

Unclear or misleading interest-rate clauses may raise issues under Spanish and European consumer protection law.

C. Financial Inclusion Metrics

Financial inclusion measures whether individuals and businesses can access essential financial services.

Important indicators include:

Availability of bank accounts.

Access to affordable credit.

Availability of payment services.

Access to banking facilities in rural areas.

Accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Availability of suitable financial services for vulnerable consumers.

Financial inclusion is particularly important in Spain because geographical and economic differences can affect access to banking services.

D. Gender Equality Metrics

Gender equality metrics examine whether women and men receive fair treatment in financial services and within financial institutions.

Examples include:

Differences in loan approval rates.

Differences in borrowing costs.

Access to business financing.

Gender representation in financial management.

Equal opportunities for promotion.

Gender pay differences.

Differences in statistical outcomes should be investigated carefully rather than automatically treated as proof of discrimination.

E. Transparency and Disclosure Metrics

Transparency metrics measure whether financial institutions provide customers with accurate and understandable information.

Important indicators include:

Disclosure compliance.

Accuracy of financial statements.

Clarity of contractual terms.

Disclosure of commissions.

Explanation of investment risks.

Accessibility of customer information.

F. Algorithmic Decision-Making Fairness

Automated credit-scoring systems should be regularly examined for discriminatory outcomes, inaccurate predictions and unjustified differences between customer groups.

Financial institutions should maintain appropriate documentation, testing, monitoring and human oversight.

A statistically accurate model is not necessarily a fair model. Both predictive performance and discriminatory effects must be evaluated.

5. Role of Spanish Financial Regulatory Authorities

A. Banco de España

Banco de España supervises credit institutions within its legal and institutional responsibilities.

Its functions include:

Monitoring banking conduct.

Promoting sound banking practices.

Examining compliance with applicable banking regulations.

Protecting banking customers within its supervisory competence.

Supporting financial stability.

Monitoring risks arising from banking activities.

B. Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV)

The CNMV supervises Spanish securities markets and investment-service providers within its statutory responsibilities.

It plays an important role in ensuring:

Investor protection.

Market transparency.

Fair treatment of investment clients.

Prevention of market abuse.

Compliance with investment-service requirements.

C. European Central Bank

The European Central Bank plays a major supervisory role in the Single Supervisory Mechanism.

It directly supervises significant credit institutions and works with national competent authorities, including Banco de España.

Its supervisory responsibilities contribute to sound governance, risk management and institutional accountability.

D. European Banking Authority

The European Banking Authority develops regulatory standards and guidelines concerning banking supervision, governance, consumer protection and risk management.

Its guidelines are particularly relevant to the development of consistent governance and fair-treatment practices across European financial institutions.

6. Seven Important Case Laws Relating to Fairness in Financial Governance in Spain

The following seven decisions are particularly relevant to fairness, transparency, consumer protection, automated decision-making and accountability in the Spanish financial sector. Some are decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Spanish proceedings or Spanish banking practices, while others are decisions of Spanish courts.

CASE 1: Banco Español de Crédito SA v Joaquín Calderón Camino (Banesto)

Citation: Case C-618/10, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 June 2012.

Facts of the Case:

The dispute concerned a consumer credit agreement containing a contractual term relating to default interest.

The Spanish court dealing with the dispute questioned whether it could modify an unfair contractual term rather than simply declaring it non-binding on the consumer.

The matter was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Legal Issues:

The principal legal issue concerned the powers of national courts when examining unfair contractual terms in consumer financial agreements.

Another issue was whether a court could reduce an unfair contractual interest rate to a level considered reasonable.

Judgment:

The Court held that national courts must examine potentially unfair consumer contractual terms and that an unfair term must generally be treated as non-binding on the consumer.

The Court also explained that national courts cannot ordinarily rewrite an unfair contractual term merely to make it reasonable, because doing so could weaken the preventive effect of consumer protection legislation.

Principle of Fairness:

The case establishes that fairness in financial governance requires genuine consumer protection rather than superficial contractual correction.

Financial institutions cannot rely on unfair contractual provisions simply because customers have formally accepted them.

Importance in Spain:

The decision strengthened judicial protection against unfair banking practices in Spain.

It also reinforced the responsibility of financial institutions to establish transparent and legally compliant consumer credit agreements.

CASE 2: Aziz v Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa)

Citation: Case C-415/11, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 March 2013.

Facts of the Case:

The case involved a Spanish mortgage agreement and mortgage enforcement proceedings.

Mohamed Aziz faced enforcement of his mortgage following repayment difficulties.

The Spanish legal framework at the time provided limited opportunities for consumers to challenge unfair contractual terms effectively during mortgage enforcement proceedings.

Legal Issues:

The central question concerned whether Spanish mortgage enforcement procedures provided adequate protection against unfair contractual terms.

The Court also examined the criteria for determining whether a contractual term created a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties.

Judgment:

The Court held that the European Unfair Contract Terms Directive requires effective protection for consumers.

It explained that national courts must be able to examine potentially unfair terms and that national procedural rules must not make consumer protection practically impossible or excessively difficult.

Principle of Fairness:

The decision established that fairness requires a proper balance between the rights of financial institutions and the rights of borrowers.

Mortgage enforcement procedures should not prevent consumers from obtaining effective judicial protection against unfair contractual conditions.

Importance in Spain:

The judgment significantly influenced Spanish mortgage enforcement law.

It encouraged reforms intended to improve judicial protection for mortgage borrowers and strengthened the importance of fairness in mortgage lending.

CASE 3: Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others v Cajasur Banco SAU and Others

Citation: Joined Cases C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 21 December 2016.

Facts of the Case:

The disputes concerned mortgage agreements entered into with Spanish banks containing minimum interest-rate clauses, commonly known as floor clauses.

These clauses prevented mortgage interest rates from falling below a specified minimum even when the applicable reference interest rate decreased.

Spanish courts had considered certain floor clauses unfair because of inadequate transparency.

Legal Issues:

The main issue concerned the consequences of declaring floor clauses unfair.

In particular, the Court examined whether the effects of invalidity could be limited to payments made after a particular date.

Judgment:

The Court held that where a floor clause is unfair, the consumer must generally be restored to the position they would have occupied without that clause.

It rejected the limitation of restitution to payments made only after 9 May 2013.

Principle of Fairness:

Fairness requires effective restitution when a financial institution has obtained payments under an unfair contractual term.

A financial institution should not retain financial benefits obtained through an unfair practice merely because of a judicially created temporal limitation.

Importance in Spain:

The judgment was extremely important for Spanish mortgage customers.

It strengthened financial accountability and demonstrated that transparency and fairness are essential requirements in mortgage product governance.

CASE 4: Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA

Citation: Case C-186/16, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 20 September 2017.

Facts of the Case:

The dispute concerned foreign-currency loans granted by a Romanian bank.

Borrowers received loans denominated in Swiss francs but faced increased repayment obligations following exchange-rate fluctuations.

Although the case did not originate in Spain, its principles are relevant to Spanish financial institutions offering foreign-currency financial products.

Legal Issues:

The Court examined the transparency requirements applicable to contractual terms relating to foreign-currency loans.

The central issue was whether borrowers had been adequately informed about the potential economic consequences of exchange-rate fluctuations.

Judgment:

The Court explained that contractual transparency requires more than merely presenting terms in grammatically understandable language.

Consumers should be able to understand the potentially significant economic consequences of contractual provisions.

Financial institutions must provide sufficient information to enable borrowers to make informed decisions.

Principle of Fairness:

Fairness in financial governance requires meaningful disclosure of financial risks.

A bank should not rely on a customer's formal acceptance of a foreign-currency loan where the economic consequences of exchange-rate fluctuations were not adequately explained.

Importance in Spain:

The judgment is relevant to Spanish financial institutions dealing with foreign-currency lending and complex financial products.

It demonstrates the importance of transparency metrics, risk disclosure and informed consumer consent.

CASE 5: Gómez del Moral Guasch v Bankia SA

Citation: Case C-125/18, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 March 2020.

Facts of the Case:

The dispute concerned a mortgage loan granted by Bankia in Spain.

The mortgage interest rate was linked to the Spanish IRPH reference index.

The borrower challenged the contractual term because of concerns regarding transparency and the information provided about the operation of the reference index.

Legal Issues:

The central legal question concerned whether a mortgage interest-rate clause referring to the IRPH index could be examined for unfairness under European consumer protection law.

Another issue concerned the information that financial institutions should provide to borrowers about the calculation and operation of the reference index.

Judgment:

The Court held that the relevant contractual term could fall within the scope of judicial review under Directive 93/13/EEC.

It explained that national courts must examine whether the term was clear and understandable and whether the consumer received sufficient information about the reference index.

The Court also clarified that the unfairness assessment must consider the circumstances of the particular contract and the applicable legal requirements.

Principle of Fairness:

Financial institutions must ensure transparency in the calculation of interest rates and the operation of financial reference indices.

Customers should understand how contractual mechanisms affect their repayment obligations.

Importance in Spain:

This judgment has considerable significance for Spanish mortgage governance.

It strengthened the role of transparency assessments in financial contracts and encouraged greater accountability in the use of benchmark interest rates.

CASE 6: Caixabank SA and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Various Consumers

Citation: Joined Cases C-224/19 and C-259/19, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 16 July 2020.

Facts of the Case:

The disputes concerned Spanish mortgage agreements containing contractual provisions relating to mortgage expenses.

Consumers challenged clauses requiring them to bear certain costs associated with mortgage arrangements.

The Spanish courts sought clarification regarding the consequences of unfair mortgage expense clauses and the allocation of related costs.

Legal Issues:

The principal issues included:

Whether mortgage expense clauses could be considered unfair.

Whether consumers could recover amounts paid under unfair contractual terms.

How legal costs should be allocated.

Whether national procedural rules could undermine effective consumer protection.

Judgment:

The Court explained that where a mortgage expense clause is unfair, it must generally be treated as non-binding on the consumer.

The allocation of expenses should then be determined under applicable national legal rules.

The Court also addressed the importance of ensuring that procedural rules concerning litigation costs do not discourage consumers from exercising their rights under European consumer protection legislation.

Principle of Fairness:

Fairness requires that consumers should not bear financial burdens imposed through unfair contractual terms.

It also requires effective access to judicial remedies.

Importance in Spain:

The judgment reinforced transparency and accountability in Spanish mortgage lending.

It demonstrated that fairness metrics must consider not only the original contractual terms but also the financial consequences and remedies available when unfair practices are identified.

CASE 7: OQ v Land Hessen (SCHUFA Holding)

Citation: Case C-634/21, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 7 December 2023.

Facts of the Case:

The dispute concerned automated credit scoring carried out by SCHUFA, a German credit information agency.

The credit score was used by a financial institution when assessing a person's creditworthiness.

The applicant challenged the use of automated scoring and its consequences for access to financial services.

Although the proceedings originated in Germany, the judgment is highly relevant to Spanish banks, credit information agencies and fintech companies using automated financial assessments.

Legal Issues:

The central issue concerned whether automated credit scoring could constitute automated decision-making under Article 22 of the GDPR.

The Court examined whether the generation of a credit score could fall within the scope of Article 22 where a third party gives that score a determining role in its decision.

Judgment:

The Court held that automated scoring may constitute automated individual decision-making within the meaning of Article 22 where the recipient institution draws strongly on that score in establishing, implementing or terminating a contractual relationship.

The judgment emphasised the importance of the GDPR safeguards applicable to such decisions.

Principle of Fairness:

Financial institutions cannot avoid data protection obligations simply by outsourcing automated credit assessments to external scoring agencies.

Fairness requires appropriate safeguards, transparency and accountability in automated credit decisions.

Importance in Spain:

The judgment is particularly relevant to Spanish financial governance because banks increasingly use automated systems for creditworthiness assessments, loan approvals and financial risk analysis.

It supports the development of algorithmic fairness metrics and responsible artificial intelligence governance.

7. Comparative Analysis of the Seven Cases

The seven cases demonstrate different dimensions of fairness in financial governance.

Banco Español de Crédito: Protection against unfair interest-rate terms and judicial control of consumer contracts.

Aziz v Catalunyacaixa: Fair mortgage enforcement and effective judicial protection.

Gutiérrez Naranjo: Restitution of financial benefits obtained through unfair mortgage clauses.

Andriciuc: Transparency in foreign-currency lending and disclosure of financial risks.

Gómez del Moral Guasch: Transparency and fairness in mortgage reference interest rates.

Caixabank and BBVA: Fair allocation of mortgage expenses and effective consumer remedies.

SCHUFA: Fairness, accountability and safeguards in automated credit scoring.

Collectively, these decisions demonstrate that fairness is not merely a voluntary corporate governance objective. It is closely connected with enforceable legal rights and regulatory responsibilities.

8. Challenges in Implementing Fairness Metrics in Spain

Despite the development of consumer protection and financial governance legislation, Spanish financial institutions face several challenges.

A. Algorithmic Discrimination

Artificial intelligence systems may produce discriminatory outcomes because of biased training data, inappropriate variables or flawed statistical assumptions.

For example, a credit-scoring system might disadvantage applicants from particular geographical areas even when their individual repayment capacity is satisfactory.

B. Lack of Transparency

Customers may find it difficult to understand complicated mortgage clauses, investment products, banking commissions and automated credit decisions.

Financial institutions must improve their disclosure systems and communication practices.

C. Unequal Access to Credit

Individuals with irregular employment, low income or limited credit histories may face greater difficulties accessing financial services.

Banks should distinguish legitimate credit-risk assessment from unjustified discrimination.

D. Data Protection Risks

Financial institutions process substantial amounts of personal and financial information.

Incorrect data, excessive data collection and inappropriate profiling can negatively affect customers.

E. Measurement Difficulties

Different fairness metrics may produce conflicting results.

For example, equalising loan approval rates between groups may not necessarily produce equal error rates or equal repayment-risk outcomes.

Consequently, institutions must select appropriate indicators and justify their use.

F. Regulatory Compliance

Financial institutions must comply with several overlapping regulatory frameworks, including banking supervision, consumer protection, data protection and investment regulation.

Effective compliance requires coordination between legal, compliance, risk-management and technology departments.

9. Recommendations for Improving Fairness Metrics in Spanish Financial Governance

The following measures can strengthen fairness in Spanish financial institutions:

Develop standardised fairness indicators for lending, investment and banking services.

Conduct regular discrimination assessments of credit-scoring systems.

Improve transparency in mortgage agreements and financial product disclosures.

Establish effective complaint-handling and dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Introduce regular independent audits of automated decision-making systems.

Ensure meaningful human intervention where legally required for automated decisions.

Improve financial inclusion for vulnerable consumers and underserved communities.

Strengthen internal corporate governance and accountability mechanisms.

Monitor differences in loan approval rates, interest rates and financial service accessibility.

Provide clear explanations of the factors influencing significant financial decisions.

Maintain appropriate documentation of fairness assessments and corrective actions.

Integrate consumer protection principles into institutional risk-management policies.

10. Importance of Fairness Metrics in Corporate Financial Governance

Fairness metrics contribute to responsible corporate governance by ensuring that financial institutions consider the interests of customers and other stakeholders.

They improve institutional accountability and reduce the likelihood of discriminatory or misleading financial practices.

They also strengthen investor confidence because institutions that maintain fair governance standards are better positioned to manage legal, regulatory and reputational risks.

Fairness metrics support the following governance objectives:

Accountability: Financial institutions can demonstrate that their decisions are based on appropriate legal and institutional standards.

Transparency: Customers and investors receive understandable information about financial products and services.

Equality: Financial services are provided without unjustified discriminatory treatment.

Consumer Protection: Unfair contractual conditions and misleading financial practices can be identified and addressed.

Risk Management: Institutions can identify legal, operational, reputational and algorithmic risks.

Sustainable Governance: Fair treatment strengthens the long-term relationship between financial institutions, customers and society.

11. Conclusion

Fairness Metrics in Financial Governance in Spain represent an important mechanism for ensuring equality, transparency, accountability and responsible financial decision-making.

The Spanish financial governance framework is influenced by constitutional equality principles, banking legislation, European consumer protection law, GDPR requirements and financial supervisory standards.

The seven judicial decisions discussed above demonstrate how fairness principles have developed in relation to consumer credit, mortgage lending, contractual transparency, restitution, financial risk disclosure and automated credit scoring.

The decisions in Banco Español de Crédito, Aziz, Gutiérrez Naranjo, Andriciuc, Gómez del Moral Guasch, Caixabank and SCHUFA collectively illustrate that financial fairness requires more than formal compliance with contractual conditions. It requires meaningful transparency, effective remedies, appropriate risk assessment and accountability for financial decisions.

In modern financial governance, fairness metrics are particularly important because banks and fintech companies increasingly depend on artificial intelligence, automated credit scoring and large-scale personal data processing.

Therefore, Spanish financial institutions should adopt measurable fairness standards, conduct regular compliance assessments, prevent unjustified discrimination and ensure that customers receive effective legal protection.

Ultimately, fairness metrics strengthen public confidence, improve financial inclusion, support sustainable corporate governance and contribute to the stability and integrity of Spain's financial system.

12. References to the Seven Judicial Decisions

Banco Español de Crédito SA v Joaquín Calderón Camino, Case C-618/10, CJEU, 14 June 2012.

Aziz v Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa, Case C-415/11, CJEU, 14 March 2013.

Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others v Cajasur Banco SAU and Others, Joined Cases C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15, CJEU, 21 December 2016.

Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA, Case C-186/16, CJEU, 20 September 2017.

Gómez del Moral Guasch v Bankia SA, Case C-125/18, CJEU, 3 March 2020.

Caixabank SA and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Various Consumers, Joined Cases C-224/19 and C-259/19, CJEU, 16 July 2020.

OQ v Land Hessen (SCHUFA Holding), Case C-634/21, CJEU, 7 December 2023.

Note: The seven decisions are relevant judicial authorities, but not all originated in Spanish proceedings. The SCHUFA and Andriciuc decisions originated outside Spain and are included because their European Union legal principles are relevant to Spanish financial institutions. The cases establish legal principles relevant to fairness; they do not prescribe a single statutory set of numerical fairness metrics for every Spanish bank.