PRODUCTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE ANDALUSIAN FORUM ON JUSTICE

Last friday we attended, invited by the Popular Party (the actual party in the Spanish government), to the Andalusian Justice Forum in Sevilla.

In the Forum we met, appart from many professionals from all over Andalusia, and some relevant polititians, the General Secretary in Andalusia of the Popular Party, several high charges of the Ministry of Justice, the spokesman of the Popular Party on Justice in the Parliament and one of the heads of the Legislation Commission of the Spanish Parliament, and the President of the CADECA (Counsil of Association Bars of Andalusia).

The general feeling was that the actual situation of the Justice Administration is really poor, and the charges from the Government and the Parliament admited Justice was too slow. In this point, they said that one of the reasons was the high litigiousness, the great number of claims the Courts have to resolve, and said that this was the reason of the litigation fees they imposed.

We alleged that, from our point of view, it's not so easy to assure if "the hen was before the egg" or vice versa. And that perhaps there are many claims that could be avoided with an effcient and fast Justice Administration.
After that, we asked them to work hardly on the improvement of the Justice Administration in two directions: 1) Provide more and more appropriate resources (both human and material); and 2) A much more strict management of the actual ones, as sometimes the question is not the resources but how the resources are handled, quite uneffciently most of the times.

We specially emphasised on how bad the reputation of our legal system is abroad, and how it impacts on foreign investors´confidence on Spain, and transmited them some of the problems foreign ex-pats and investors find in our country, from the side of our experience with many British and Scandinavian clients.

Its obvious that, for recovering their confidence, deep improvements on the legal system are needed.

And, in that line, we suggested how useful it would be to incorporate to our legal system the "adhesion to an existing ruling", as it would avoid many and many equal claims. Say, for example, the Supreme Court states, in the case of the latest ruling about BGs, that any buyer under a certain set of facts (amoounts paid thriugh a bank account, subscription of a general policy by the developer, properties not delivered, etc) can adhere to the ruling. This would avoid hundreds of claims that, at last, come into a heavy workload for Courts.

Unexpectedly, the proposal was really welcomed by the spokesman on Justice of the PP in the Spanish Parliament, who said they would explore this possibility.

We have been appointed as permanent members of this Forum, and there will be another session for mid-november, with the attendance of the actual Minister of Justice.

We must admit that, when we were appointed, we were not very optimistic on the practical utility of the Forum, but after the meeting, considering how participative it has been, the attendance of on-site professionals and the continuity it's going to have, we are really hopeful about how influential it could be.  

Some members of the Forum. Between them, Rosalía Espinosa (MP in the Andalusian Parliament) and Loles Lopez (General Secretary of the Andalusian Popular Party)

Our CEO, Emilio Lucas; Gabriel Alcoba (lawyer); and José Pascual Pozo (President of the CADECA)

** EDITED - testing post**

Great! Go ahead!

Dear Lucas Asociados,

Thank you for all your endeavours to identify a way forward to better deal with the overloaded court system and judiciary with regard to enforcement of claims associated with Ley 57/68.

May I ask if you consider there is sufficient case law and Supreme Court rulings in place for those who, following an extremely lengthy route to justice, finally managed to gain cancellation of contracts due to developer breach and lack of individual BG's, only to find that enforcements had been compromised in these lengthy interim periods, due to developer insolvency etc, resulting in additional generic claims against the Banks?

Do you consider that these claimants, many of whom now find themselves at the back of a very long queue awaiting justice, through no fault of their own, could also benefit from your suggestion for "adhesion to an existing ruling" to avoid many equal claims? Will you be endeavouring to bring to the attention of the authorities, the need to also include these claimants into your proposed system?

It seems somewhat ironic if these claimants who pioneered for justice and enforcement of rights according to Ley 57/68 all those years ago, gained canx of contracts but still await justice ( in fear of a repeat of the ordeal to be subjected to yet another decade before they achieve return of monies) will remain outside of this " adhesion to an existing ruling " principal. Do you perceive that they too fall under a "set of facts" that would qualify?

Many thanks.

Dear Lucas Asociados

As we see more and more first instance case wins against the Banks being currently appealed as "standard practice" by the Banks, without any due consideration of legitimate legal arguments appertaining to the appeal being reviewed by the judiciary at that point, do you now consider that Ley 57/68 claimants will be placed at similar risk from continual appeals appertaining to the new law ley 20/2015 in 2016 also being submitted as "standard practice", until such time as two identical Supreme Court rulings inhibit such abuse of the appeal court system by the Banks (even though as Keith has identified, claimants' inalienable rights according to Ley 57/68 and SC clarification should be protected)?

The Banks by their "standard practice approach" at present appear to be running roughshod over the Spanish system of Justice, jamming the courts and making a mockery of adherence to all articles of existing Law Ley 57/68, which makes the argument for speedy effective financial disincentives such as consistent awarding of backdating costs and interest to be critical in this sorry saga of events.

Where is the disincentive if the Banks are not made fully accountable for these cynical ploys to delay and obstruct speedy return of monies for innocent and valid offplan claimants?

And perhaps equally worrying, where is the disincentive if courts are seen to be profiting in the lengthy interim periods from interest accrued on monies deposited into their accounts by the Banks, until such time as enforcement of rulings is concluded? Doesn't this demonstrate an unhealthy conflict of interests?

Please Lucas Associados can you also bring to the Justice Forum’s attention (unlawful?) inequalities with regard to time constraints within the Spanish Justice system (favouring developers/Banks), whereby deadlines are in place when challenging previous court rulings (contra legem rulings that previously failed to recognise purchasers inalienable rights) and yet no time constraints are in place to ensure timely Supreme Court rulings (and all legal stages leading to this, eg first instance rulings, appeal rulings) essential to act as clarification of Ley 57/68 to deter/successfully challenge such contra legem rulings! Nor are time constraints in place to ensure timely judicial enforcements/rulings appertaining to cancellation of contract/return of monies/associated interest prior to developer insolvencies!   

This message was last edited by ads on 19/10/2015.

Dear Lucas Asociados,

Please could you clarify if you envisage that there will still have to be two identical Supreme Court rulings for a set of facts to qualify, or would several appeal rulings respecting inalienable rights according to Ley 57/68 be sufficient to qualify for an "adhesion to an existing ruling"?

My concerns relate to the time it takes to achieve a SC ruling (or two!) in this scenario.

How do you see the detail of this adhesion to a set of facts working in principal and would you envisage a similar approach to gaining consistency of awarding interest and costs?

Do you have any idea how long this would take to implement, as if it is not agreed upon swiftly it would defeat the objective, would it not?

Kind regards and many thanks for your continuing endeavours.