All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

El blog de Maria

Your daily Spanish Law reporter. Have it with a cafe con leche. www.costaluzlawyers.es

Legal tip 1312. Imposition of legal costs and Law 57/68 ?
Monday, July 20, 2015 @ 3:55 PM

A recent Court Decission by Alicante Appeal Court received at the Law Firm. On legal costs payment and Law 57/68:

( Literal spanish version)

En cuanto a las costas, consideramos que existen serias dudas de derecho derivadas de (1) la necesidad o no de certificación individual de aseguramiento y (2) depósito específico de las cantidades en la cuenta especial  correspondiente, para el nacimiento de la obligación de los avalistas de devolver las cantidades anticipadas, de hecho existe jurisprudencia menor contradictoria sobre el  particular, incluso entre las propias secciones de la Audiencia Provincial de Alicante.

Por lo que no procede hacer especial pronunciamiento en costas en este proceso en  ninguna de las dos instancias.

( which it reads in English as...)

In regards to costs we consider that there are serious doubts of law arising from (1) the need or otherwise for individual certification of specific deposit insurance and (2) payments of the same into an special account for the birth of the obligation of the gusrantoor in order to return the advanced payments , in fact there is  contradictory jurisprudence on the subject, even among their own sections of the Provincial Court of Alicante. It is not appropriate to make a special statement in costs in this process in any of the two instances .

Despite statements of the Alicante Appeal Court above, Supreme Court has already stablished legal doctrine on:

- No need of individual certificate

- No need of deposit into a special account.

FOR THE  BIRTH OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE GUARANTOOR IN ORDER TO RETURN THE ADVANCED PAYMENTS

The beach "El Portet", Alicante, Valencia, East of Spain

 



Like 0




3 Comments


ads said:
Monday, July 20, 2015 @ 6:48 PM

Thank you Maria.

What is legally required to ensure consistency from provincial court rulings ? Does this require two identical rulings from the SC on aspects such as this before judges HAVE TO comply with their directives?

In the interim does this then leave the innocent client at risk of a legal lottery?

Where does judicial moral authority come into the equation to make Banks/Insurers FULLY accountable, so that judicial rulings act as adequate disincentive to increasing instances of Bank/Insurers "playing the system " of appeals and abusive delays, in full knowledge that inconsistencies relating to the award of costs and major delays from ever increasing litigation, leaves the client at further financial risk?

Do barristers have the opportunity to bring these uncomfortable realities to the attention of the judge and fight for "moral authority" in this regard? This inconsistent judicial approach without due regard to moral authority which favours the "transgressors" (i.e. the financial institutions that failed to comply with all articles of existing law from the outset) is sadly bringing the Spanish Justice System into question is it not?


mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 @ 3:19 PM

Provintial Appeal Courts need to apply Spanish Law consistently which means to apply the right Law, Uses and General Principles of Law as well as to follow Case Law which in Spain is settled after two Court Decissions by the Supreme Court.

If they do not, they risk buyer going to Supreme Court and getting the consequent judicial discredit out of not following Supreme Court doctrine.


ads said:
Monday, September 14, 2015 @ 6:18 PM

Thank you Maria.
The trouble however appears to be getting exactly the same decision by the Supreme Court on two occasions, as Banks appear to be very clever at avoiding the exact same appeal!


Only registered users can comment on this blog post. Please Sign In or Register now.




 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x