All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

El blog de Maria

Your daily Spanish Law reporter. Have it with a cafe con leche. www.costaluzlawyers.es

Legal tip 1461. All won cases in 2018 so far
05 December 2018 @ 11:01



Like 0




15 Comments


Chrissie1 said:
05 December 2018 @ 13:00

What does P1 mean ?


Keith110 said:
05 December 2018 @ 13:49

P1 = First Instance Court

P2 = Provincial Appeal Court

TS = Supreme Court


Chrissie1 said:
05 December 2018 @ 18:46

Thanks Keith. Merry Christmas


ads said:
05 December 2018 @ 20:28

How many appeals at provincial level and SC level does it take to make SGR compliant when you look at all the cases that have been won during 2018?
Likewise with other Banks where continuing successful rulings appear to have been won, but are still being contested by the Banks.
When will the SC make rulings associated with LEY 57/68 as a whole that afford legal certainty for all Banks to comply with going forward?
This piecemeal approach to gain clarity with regard to Ley 57/68 appears to work against innocent clients fighting for their rights and also appears to compromise the system of justice in that process....


mariadecastro said:
05 December 2018 @ 21:05

Every bank appealing against consolidated doctrine is being imposed to pay legal costs.


Chrissie1 said:
05 December 2018 @ 21:31

1. Have the four TS cases been won ?
2. Is our case one of the above 4 TS cases?


ads said:
05 December 2018 @ 22:55

Thank you Maria.
BUT....Consolidated doctrine only comes after at least 2 SC rulings have been achieved on the same point of law, is that correct Maria?
So for those clients achieving successes in the lengthy interim periods prior to consolidated doctrine, costs will not be awarded, is this correct ?
So banks will continue to appeal in full knowledge that they have little extra to lose, plus neither will they be penalised by accruing interest during the lengthy interim period if they have already placed avals ( promise to pay) with the courts....
As this stands there is little disincentive for Banks to stop proliferating appeals in this manner which could be deemed purposefully obstructive.
Could this pattern of behaviour on the part of the Banks be deemed by the SC to be acting in bad faith Maria?
And could the SC reflect and rule against such patterns of bad faith?
Who would be expected to provide this evidence of bad faith however?
Who is collecting this evidence?
Sorry for all the questions but this appears a major failing which is being purposefully exploited by the Banks.


Chrissie1 said:
06 December 2018 @ 00:16

1. Have the four TS cases been won?
2. Is our case one of the above four TS cases?


mariadecastro said:
07 December 2018 @ 11:23

Chrissie:
Yes, all cases there are won cases. Yours is not among them. You will receive direct and personal communication once there is a result at the Supreme Court.
Ads:
Consolidated doctrine is established after two Court decisions, in the interim, First Instance and Appeal Courts impose costs on the party who loses the case, as a general rule.
Banks have much to lose by Appealing as interests are accrued against them and legal costs can be imposed in the other legal instances they appeal to too.
Supreme Court will not admit a case into Cassation if it has no ground.


Chrissie1 said:
07 December 2018 @ 12:11

Thank you for your reply it is appreciated.




Chrissie1 said:
07 December 2018 @ 19:52

Does this mean that 4 TS cases as above have been won?

Thanks


Chrissie1 said:
07 December 2018 @ 19:54

Does this mean that 4 TS cases as above have been won?

Thanks


Chrissie1 said:
07 December 2018 @ 20:26

Sorry about the above please delete and ignore my last two comments.


ads said:
08 December 2018 @ 10:28

Does the SC have the authority to award costs if a Cassation Appeal is not admitted, and in that circumstance of non admittance, do the SC have the authority to reassess interest beyond the date that the aval was admitted by the Bank into court( which could be many years prior), to act as disincentive for the Banks potential purposeful intent to delay?
At what point can the SC distinguish Banks bad intent to use the system to purposefully delay and in that process in the lengthy interim periods establish elements of doubt that can influence other judicial rulings by not awarding costs so long as those elements of doubt are allowed to continue?
There is a distinct difference between genuine request for clarification and purposeful intent to manipulate or obstruct the system of justice in this way is there not Maria?


Chrissie1 said:
10 December 2018 @ 12:41

When were the Supreme Court (TS) cases above submitted to the SC ?


Only registered users can comment on this blog post. Please Sign In or Register now.




 

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x