It has been previously noted that
“Article 117 of the Spanish Constitution, "Justice emanates from the people and is administered in the name of the King by Judges and Magistrates who are members of the judiciary, independent, immovable, responsible and subject only to the rule of law."
Is this correct?
If so, it would follow that when lack of judicial independence and the rule of law is threatened ( protectionism or lack of timely justice or major under provision of resources etc) then this would be in contravention of the Spanish Constitution would it not?
If so, people do appear to have the power to ensure that the rule of law and justice is adhered to, but only if adequate reporting, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are in place to assist in that process.
This is why it is essential for good legal professionals to address this reporting and monitoring issue on behalf of their clients, by reporting instances where lack of timely justice and proliferation of Bank appeals born from lack of legal certainty, only exacerbate the problems associated with MAJOR delays being exploited by the Banks, and this is directly compromising the system of justice in Spain, which in turn is in contravention to the rule of law.
The EU are supposed to have infringement powers however, to regulate with regard to the rule of law, but as we all have born witness to, they have failed to enforce infringements and act upon evidence from many past petitions and debate in the European Parliament ( indeed at times frustration spilled over with one supportive MEP sadly suggesting that Spain was acting as a bandit state!)....The EU commission responded by suggesting that time should be provided for nations such as Spain to put “ their own house in order” and reform.
It may be argued however, a decade on, that time and patience has run out in this regard in terms of the ongoing proliferation of compromising delays and non compliance etc, so now the emphasis shifts from people’s petitions to more authoritative evidence, which is why claimants should be requesting their legal representatives to be far more collectively proactive in reporting back instances of perceived Banks non compliance and lack of timely legal certainty (SC rulings or decisions re non admission of Cassation Appeals), to counter proliferation of Bank appeals that continue to significantly compromise timely enforcement of justice, etc,
But also this is why I asked the questions “how is bad intent and non compliance interpreted in law and what evidence would this rely upon? Do for instance the SC have sufficient evidence to date to substantiate such behaviour and has there been any direct reference to this in their current doctrine going forward?”
The Supreme Court may well have it in their existing remit to recognise such non compliance or a pattern of bad intent by the Banks, and to rule in this regard ( such aspects as TIMELY non admittance of highly questionable Bank Cassation appeals that are sometimes submitted with falsehoods relating to their claims, in a perverse and manipulative ploy to exploit and disrupt the system, especially when hard fought for doctrine and majority case law has already been achieved).
The problem at present is that it can take 18 months before a Cassation appeal could be deemed non admissible, let alone another 18 months if admitted, before a SC ruling is achieved. And during this lengthy period of time the Banks are not being made accountable for accruing interest beyond the point of AVAL ( the promise to pay) which could be several years prior.
So the plea goes out to good legal representatives to please act collectively upon this, in not only their clients bests interests, but also in the interest of a justice system that is currently being significantly exploited by the Banks.
This message was last edited by ads on 30/11/2018.