More fees for procurador

I won a case against mirador developers nearly five years ago.  We have never received any of the money that mirador were told to pay us.  I have now been told that I need to pay 450 euros to the procurator to "keep our claim alive ". I was wondering if we are just throwing more money away or would it be sensible to pay this. Your views would be appreciated.

If the company you a perusing has applied for bankruptcy protection I would think again .

Once you have a won Court decission against a developer, in most of the cases, the most sensible route is to try to find out on banks receiving amounts and direct a claim against this.

Windtalker is partly right, you won't get anything from the developer if they have gone bust, but María is totally right - having won the case, you should be able to proceed against the bank who held your deposit to recover your money.

The question to ask your lawyer is whether they understand this and whether a case is being taken against the bank under Ley 57/68.  Not all lawyers are fully up to date with using the applicable law. Don't pay any money without being sure that the correct action is being taken on your case.  If in doubt, ask María as her firm have won a number of cases now.  It still takes time, but most of these cases are won if the lawyer knows what they are doing.  Most of the people I have had contact with have recovered more than enough with the legal interest to recoup their deposit and pay their legal fees. 

Good luck.

Agreed BUT and this is a big but... The lack of judicial moral authority to consistently award costs when gaining successful rulings against the Banks ( and in some instances inconsistent interest awards that fail to be backdated to the date monies were deposited) until such time as Supreme Court Doctrine is established, is having a terrible knock on effect, as it fails to act as adequate detterent against Banks who continue their ploys to standardise submission of appeals in full knowledge that they can cause maximum disruption to a justice system struggling under the strain to cope with a massive increase in appeals ( not to mention the increase in claimants' costs associated with defending against  bank appeals).

 This in turn ironically also delays the ability not only to gain timely justice but also delays the ability  to gain Supreme Court Doctrine.

Note also, delays of this magnitude ( without adequate financial provision to resource the justice system to cope with the proliferation of  Bank appeals) contravenes the rule of law, and inconsistent rulings that fail to recognise correct award of interest also appears to contravene the principal of legal certainty. 

This message was last edited by ads on 11/03/2016.

Once doctrine has been set up by the Supreme Court on Bank´s liabilities, it is the risponsability of Bank fo Spain to act and set rules to Banks.

It is also true that rights to judicial proceeding and appeals are Constitutional rights so, a balanced measure is necessary by the competent authorities.

It is also for the good of the financial system as Banks are losing lots of money with the interests this Appeals entail