The Sentence of the Court of Justice of the European Union of July 9, 2020 comes to answer the five questions that, in its preliminary question, the Court of First Instance and Instruction No. 3 of Teruel asks about the validity of the new agreements in the context of the floor clauses, establishing jurisprudential doctrine on this matter about which our Supreme Court had previously ruled in its Judgments of October 16, 2017, in the sense of considering the agreed floor clause null as a consequence of the novation agreement and, subsequently, those of April 11, 2018 and September 13, 2018 in the opposite direction, declaring that the novation agreement was valid. It is a long-awaited and insistently commented resolution after its publication, in attention, no doubt, both to its well-founded substantive relevance - due to the legal doctrine that it consolidates and which results from unquestionable application, and its economic repercussion - as well as its procedural significance. -by the consequence of the lifting of procedural suspensions that its dictation supposes, agreed as a result of the ruling of the Luxembourg Court-. In this paper I will review the doctrine contained in the STJUE in its comparison with the one previously declared by our Supreme Court, in order to conclude what its incidence is with respect to the criterion maintained by our High Court in its Judgments of April 11, 2018 and September 13, 2018.