Bank (supra para. 94), the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal inferred the consent of the petitioners from elements such as: (i) the reception by the petitioners of bank statements, showing the respective operation, without the petitioner objecting or making any observations, as established in article 35 of Law 6,895;179 (ii) the interest rates enjoyed by the petitioners because of their share in the certificates of deposit or any other product, in the understanding that they enjoyed interest rates that were “considerably higher than those offered on fixed term deposits in the Banco de Montevideo […] and significantly higher that market rates,”180 and (iii) the regular practice or profile of the petitioner.181 the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14479); Judgment No. 306 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 13, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Lingeri, Manuel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15058), and Judgment No. 726 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of December 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gutiérrez, Eduardo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15155). 179 Cf. Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13912 and 13914); Judgment No. 487 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of October 23, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Castro, Gustavo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14601); Judgment No. 828 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of December 13, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Lijtenstein, Fabiana et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15068); Judgment No. 204 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 12, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Leroy, Jean et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment”: (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15087 and 15088); Judgment No. 315 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gigli, María v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15196 and 15197); Judgment No. 435 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of August 22, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Rama, Leandro v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15204); Judgment No. 272 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of June 4, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Notero, Ángel et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VII, attachment 27, folio 16401); Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13878 and 13882); Judgment No. 138 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 8, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Dendrinos, Daniel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14373), and Judgment No. 306 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 13, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Lingeri, Manuel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15055). 180 Cf. Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13913); Judgment No. 315 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gigli, María v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15197); Judgment No. 435 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of August 22, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Rama, Leandro v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15204 and 15205); Judgment No. 408 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of July 25, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Atijas, Vito et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15412 and 15413); Judgment No. 314 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Roure, Pablo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folio 15607); Judgment No. 292 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 6, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Rodríguez, Marta v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folio 15628); Judgment No. 272 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 4, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Notero, Ángel et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VII, attachment 27, folio 16402); Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13878 and 13879); Judgment No. 306 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 13, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Lingeri, Manuel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15055), and Judgment No. 726 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of December 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gutiérrez, Eduardo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15152). 181 Cf. Judgment No. 314 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Roure, Pablo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the 43