El blog de Maria

M11Block said:
Monday, September 9, 2013 @ 1:27 PM

Does this mean we can complain about the administration of the Justice System, or the administration of our own personal case or does it mean something completely different?

mariadecastro said:
Monday, September 9, 2013 @ 1:32 PM

M11 Block:

Possibly it is the same. If you have found extraordinary delays, obstacles... along the judicial process, this is useful for them to verify on problems as they are working intensively on solving them.

Maria

ads said:
Friday, September 13, 2013 @ 5:48 PM

Dear Maria,
Thank you for all your endeavours. They really are appreciated. But at present I fear that complaints relating to significant court delays affecting preliminary hearings, or rulings or enforcements etc are not reaching the authorities and are hidden from view.
IMHO I personally consider that complaints should be handled by the lawyer as part of their due diligence, as only they can identify if any specific legal process has been significantly compromised by delays.
Many clients appear to have little knowledge of the various and complex legal processes to even comprehend where they are up to in the overall lawsuit, let alone to be able to complain if one link along the way has been significantly delayed.
This is exactly why I feel that the lawyer is best placed to identify where problems relating to compromising delays have occured, and its essential that this information is officially and consistently logged as a complaint for the authorities to appreciate the detail and take appropriate action.
How can an individual ,who has little knowledge of the procedures and associated timescales possibly know if they are being compromised, other than they know they have been subjected to a major delay.
If this is to be given serious attention by the authorities they need to know exactly where the process is breaking down, and only the lawyer can identify this.
Why cause more delay by a complaint being issued by the client only for the authorities to subsequently request further details from their lawyer?
Surely this forms part of the due diligence and service to the client, so long as these horrendous and compromsing delays continue to impact on the Spanish system of Justice.
I wonder how you feel about this?
Sadly in a perfect world this would not be necessary but until the impact and more significantly the scale of these delays and their effects are recognised by the authorities, through the process of the complaints procedure, ALL concerned (lawyers and clients alike) will struggle to gain justice, especially as growing numbers of lawsuits against the Banks are submitted.
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out as it is yet another task for the lawyer, or law firms' administrators to deal with, but for this to work effectively, there needs to be a more consistent and standardised approach to the whole process of complaints.

ads said:
Sunday, September 15, 2013 @ 6:26 PM

Dear Maria,

To continue the point above, one very important aspect associated with lawsuits against the Bank, where clients have been compromised by extended delays in the system of justice, is the possible flaw in the court reference system.

For instance, a case against the developer could have commenced as far back as 2006 (if not earlier for some!), and yet when the continuing fight for return of monies following developer insolvency or asset stripping etc proves necessary, the year reference appears to relate to the date the second lawsuit was submitted against the Bank, and not the true point at which the fight for justice commenced.

There appears to be no timescale continuum or link to easily demonstrate within the court reference just how long the client has been “in the system” fighting for justice.
Important compromising aspects such as lengthy appeals or failure for timely enforcement of successful rulings in earlier legal stages of this process are completely hidden.

Clients feel equally apprehensive when they also learn of inconsistent rulings or final rulings that fail to act as disincentive to make Banks accountable as per Ley 57/68, by failing to recompense those who, through no fault of their own, have been subjected to compromising delays arising from lengthy developer appeals or preliminary enforcements.

It makes little sense why innocent clients, who have had to suffer years of compromising delays and had no option but to take action against the developer to prove breach of contract and gain cancellation of the contract, all necessary pre-requisites to take action against the Bank, should not be consistently and fairly recompensed by those same Banks, whose failure to ensure deposited monies were protected from the outset (as required by Ley 57/68), exposed them to this scale of litigation in the first place, as they continually prolong the legal process at every opportunity!

We need an administrative legal system that accurately reflects and links, through its reference mechanism, all aspects of the legal fight associated with Bank Guarantee abuse.

mariadecastro said:
Monday, September 16, 2013 @ 11:22 AM

Dear Ads:

Are you sending all those great inputs to General Council of Judges and General Attorney?

Kindest,

Maria

ads said:
Monday, September 16, 2013 @ 12:00 PM

As I have very little authority, I was hoping that you would do this by endorsing this input to them Maria.
They are far more likely to acknowledge this from a respected lawyer.
I will send an email to you with these observations so that you can forward this on to the relevant authorities.
Many thanks in anticipation.
Kind regards.

mariadecastro said:
Monday, September 16, 2013 @ 12:04 PM

I will certainly do.
Thanks a lot.
María