Reform of the judicial model in Spain

Read this new today on a Law Bulletin and wanted to share it with you: 

The President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, Francisco Marín Castán is committed to unify criteria in all judicial bodies to give effectiveness to Justice. In an serious attempt to adapt justice to "social reality".

He affirmed this during his speech at the "Legal Security and Economy" roundtable at the Spanish Summit on Trust , organized by the Ministry of Justice and moderated by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sport, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo.

Marín Castán explained that Justice can not continue to function as it has been done "traditionally", in which each judge is "isolated" and each court has its own criteria.

"It requires active behavior, grouping resources by subject," added and gave as an example that of the the judges of the mercantile Court  of Barcelona who have formed, by "own initiative", a court of instance in which all the criteria are unified and , so, he said, they are performing much better.

In this line, taking advantage of the presence of the Minister of Justice, Rafael Catalá, at the Summit,  the Supreme Courty Magistrate requested to adapt the regulations to the present and, specifically, a reform of the civil Cassation Appeal so this Court can work more effectively.

 Marín Castán also  indicated that the majority of the subjects that occupy the civil justice "derive from a defective fulfillment of the law, as reality has changed dramatically from  when  majority of Laws were passed, and therefore, the role of Case Law is crucial.

Fernández-Seijo. Magistrate of Barcelona Mercantile Court  defended "synchronizing judicial times with the times of economic and social reality," although he assured that the necessary legislative reforms, or more "human and economic means" should not be carried out until the judicial model is effective.

Thank you so much for keeping us all updated Maria.

Its a little difficult how to interpret these statements, but does it mean in practical terms that the inconsistencies of judicial rulings that many have had to appeal against ( using subsequent Supreme Court rulings to clarify) will now be minimised by this directive?

Will case law, where a succession of successful rulings have been achieved, but banks have nevertheless continued to appeal against, now be far more "protected and respected" in terms of acting as judicial doctrine for the judiciary to follow? At present many have been compromised by having to wait for lengthy and costly SC rulings to be achieved ( as at present it appears that two SC court rulings on the exact same point of law are required before judicial doctrine is achieved). Also is it correct that the 600,000 euros claim limit for admittance has prevented many from achieving SC rulings?

I'm wondering also what the last sentence means where it refers to "synchronising judicial times with the times of economic and social reality" and "necessary legislative reforms should not be carried out until the judicial mode is effective"?

Does this imply that these reforms, in reality, are many years away from being implemented?

Does it mean that these reforms, by referencing economic and social reality, are looking to reflect citizens ongoing need for timely and consistent justice against, for instance, Banks who have been using the compromising delays (caused by a proliferation of Bank appeals) and, where applicable judicial inconsistencies, to their advantage?

Dear Ads:

I understand that Marín Castán, president of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court is asking the Ministry of Justice to reform the Civil Cassation Appeal procedure so it gets easier to get to and also to create mechanisms by which unification of doctrine in matters constantly arising as the result of speed of our times, are more timely and more uniformly performed and implemented along Spain

Sounds hopeful if the Ministry of Justice agree to this, Maria. But I still wonder how long this will take to implement and in the meantime sadly the legal lottery remains. All we can hope for is that the judiciary in the interim aim for greater consistency in their rulings.

I look forwad to another update when this has been implemented.

Many thanks Maria..

This sounds very much like Law of Precedent, which is used often in U.K. and elsewhere where similar previous cases have been heard, establishing guidelines to be followed.

Yes case law is crucial as reference points and for timely resolutions.   It is important to test each case against the case law used, by arguments in Court with barristers, to ensure the case law is tested as the best resolution for the case involved.

that does take some extra time but is the best way of using judgements and time.   

At least that’s the way I see it.