Costa Luz Lawyers

Here is a link to:

Consejo General de la Abogacía

http://www.abogacia.es/contacto/

As we have already done before the General Council of Judicial Power, we can approach them if you want

Thank you Maria,

Is this the mechanism by which lawyers (as opposed to clients) express their own concerns and observations for evaluation/consideration going forward?

P.S.

Can I ask  if this also needs to be urgently reviewed (see below):

This message was last edited by ads on 15/02/2018.

This message was last edited by ads on 16/02/2018.

Crikey Ads.   Perhaps you should consider taking some personal appointments with María and paying for the services.  

This is intended to help all of her clients going forward, for which I and many others are very grateful to Maria for her continuing educative and courageous endeavours.

The Banks are using piecemeal challenges which they then endeavour to proliferate, that sadly have the potential to affect all claimants going forward I'm afraid, until such time as timely doctrine and judicial consideration of the wider perspective with regard to "bad faith" on the part of the Banks is achieved.

Ads:

General Council of Lawyers listens to both lawyers and clients in his claims, observations....

In regards to bad faith by Banks. (1) Appeal Courts are imposing legal costs to them as " punishment" for unnecessary appeals. This together with the fact of interests accruing against them, should be enough for them stopping those practises 

Dear Maria,

Sadly , this does not appear to be the case where Banks continue to challenge those appeal court rulings, or where inconsistencies of rulings still apply.

Without SC doctrine in place to support claimants, the Banks will continue with their ploys, and now appear to be using civil codes to further challenge inalienable rights...which then has the potential to proliferate their appeals ad infinitum.

They are using piecemeal methods to continue to challenge inalienable rights which needs to be consistently recognised by the judiciary going forward, does it not?.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the realities?

That’s good new Maria. Perhaps we can now close this subject and let you get back to work where you can earn some money. It is unfortunate that your hospitality has been abused.

Kavanagh

Please stop this abusive posting and private messaging which does little to enhance the debate going forward.

You are implying that I am abusing Maria in some way, which I take great exception to.

This is not the case and your mischief making only harms mutual respect in this regard.

This is a complete fabrication of the truth as I am genuinely attempting to bring forward some realities that I was respectfully debating with Maria.

This message was last edited by ads on 16/02/2018.

Hi ads

Please don't be put off by anyone, for highlighting the reality for many people now caught up with delays and appeals preventing real justice through Ley 57/68. The conversations between you and Maria are very valuable to those of us concerned with the reality and truth on this.  What I don't understand is why after all the problems in the past caused by delay and appeals, had that possibility not been considered at the outset of the new ruling and action taken so it couldn't become the reality once again?

Maria

Thanks once again for your continued help on this subject, it's very much appreciated. With regards to this passage you have written below, do you think those legal costs against the banks are high enough to make them change direction and pay back what they owe in reasonable time without the delays/appeals getting even longer?

In regards to bad faith by Banks. (1) Appeal Courts are imposing legal costs to them as " punishment" for unnecessary appeals. This together with the fact of interests accruing against them, should be enough for them stopping those practises

Thanks Goodstitch.

Dear Maria,

I sincerely hope you know that my intentions are honourable as we have for many years now been addressing so many issues in this regard.

On a productive note, if you feel that this is of benefit then I would be very grateful if you could approach  Consejo General de la Abogacía but I was wondering if inclusion of civil code challenges might also need to be addressed with emphasis on ensuing proliferation of Bank appeals.

Kind regards.

ads, I think you misunderstand. I was only pointing out that Maria has a business to run and a living to earn. She very kindly posts and advises on EOS free of charge purely on a goodwill basis, and that is something most members do not want to loose. Have you ever considered that her time is limited where yours is not?.

No worries Ads. I fully understand your will.

In regards to proliferation of Bank Appeals, it is a matter of the General Council of Judicial Power, which we have already addressed

M

Thank you Maria.

Kavanagh

You personalise where it is not necessary, you make wrong assumptions in that process, you do harm to the process of transparency and mutual respect and trust that has developed between Maria and myself over the years, but most concerning your interventions are non productive in the fight to make Banks fully accountable which benefits ALL in this sorry saga.

** EDITED - Against forum rules **

Ads

You will always have the support of those wanting justice as will Maria. Don't you dare give the thread a rest, your posts always tackle the reality of trying to get justice in Spain head on, and also give Maria a chance to put her own very valid points across. Many thanks to both of you for your indepth knowledge and all your questions and answers. Without the transparency you seek, the banks will get away with not being accountable. Keep the good work up!

Dear Maria,

Where you identified

In regards to bad faith by Banks. (1) Appeal Courts are imposing legal costs to them as " punishment" for unnecessary appeals. This together with the fact of interests accruing against them, should be enough for them stopping those practises "

can I ask if the CGJP are being formally advised of instances where a particular court (or judge) remains "consistently at odds" with other courts' rulings, with regards failure to respect and adhere to interim SC clarification of law already established re award of full interest payments backdated to date of deposit together with award of costs?

Is this reporting mechanism an effective means of highlighting any obvious and consistent "judicial disparity" by a particular court, that sadly appears to financially compromise those seeking full accountability from the Banks?

Does the CGJP have the power to act upon such evidence to ensure judicial consistency and respect for SC clarification is achieved going forward in this regard?

Dear Ads:

No, CGPJ does not have jurisdictional power, you can read on its nature and mission below:

http://www.poderjudicial.es/portal/site/cgpj/menuitem.65d2c4456b6ddb628e635fc1dc432ea0/?vgnextoid=f8135c98e77d1310VgnVCM1000006f48ac0aRCRD&vgnextlocale=en&vgnextfmt=default&lang_choosen=en

Hi Maria

So with regards to this,

'' It is important to point out that the performance of the General Council of the Judiciary does not have a jurisdictional character, since this type of activity is reserved, as it is stipulated in Article 117 of the Constitution, to Judges and Tribunals. ''

That sounds like the CGPJ is really just an advisory body rather than being able to put right any wrongs, or have I misunderstood their role?

Thank you Maria,

presumably ongoing evidence gathering becomes essential therefore to evoke URGENT  timely SC doctrine to ensure judicial consistency prevails in this regard....but in the interim the fear is that courts acting in this way will continue to compromise those unfortunate enough to receive contentious rulings, so out of line with other courts.

These judicial instances sadly do little favour to ensure that Banks are made truly accountable for their malpractices and obstructive methods that have been deployed during this last decade and beyond.

Hi Ads
I would like to know how many people have now tried to get their money back with interest through Lay 57/68, and what the success rate is if we judge success by the won cases where money and interest is actually back in to their bank accounts? Also what is the average time in years from the start of the case to money in their bank account. Do you know if that info' is public or easy to find out?