BPI, BCP, and Caixa Geral de Depósitos (CGD), which are the targets of the case, have already responded to the decision and deny having agreed on prices and strategies in the credit business - particularly in home purchase loans.

The ECJ considered that an isolated exchange of information between competitors “may constitute a restriction of competition” and that “it is sufficient that such exchange constitutes a form of coordination which, by its very nature, is necessarily (…) detrimental to the correct and normal functioning of competition”.

Furthermore, it identifies “intentions to change spreads in the future as one of the pieces of information exchanged and that “such an exchange could only have had the objective of distorting competition”.

The issue at hand is the exchange of information regarding the mortgage, consumer credit, and corporate credit markets, which “concerned certain current and future conditions applicable to transactions, namely spreads and risk variables, as well as the individual production values ​​of the participants in this exchange”, according to the CJEU statement.

In response to the ruling, BCP clarified that the banking process did not result in the accusation of a cartel and guaranteed that the intention to harm customers was not proven.

“I would like to highlight that, contrary to what is written in the newspapers, there was no accusation of a cartel, nor was any cartel issue judged in relation to this process”, said BCP’s CEO, Miguel Maya.