The mistakes of the lawyers of the administration of justice are not a judicial error | Legal

by time news

The mistakes of the lawyers of the administration of justice, former court clerks, do not give the right to demand economic responsibility from the State for judicial error. Not even when the mistake has consequences as serious as the cancellation of the auction of a property and the loss of its adjudication. This route is only possible when the judge or court ratifies the wrong actions of the official. This is established in a recent ruling by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.

The ruling (whose text can be consulted here) rejects the demand of a company that could not register the property acquired at an auction when it was canceled because the lawyer mistyped the reference of the mortgage subject to execution. The High Court concludes that it cannot be classified as a judicial error, “since they do not respond to the exercise of jurisdictional activity”, without prejudice to the fact that the State can be claimed for the “abnormal functioning” of the Administration of Justice.

The judicial error is one of the legal assumptions of patrimonial responsibility of the State for the abnormal functioning of the Administration of Justice. It is recognized in article 121 of the Constitution, which literally says: “The damages caused by judicial error, as well as those that are a consequence of the abnormal functioning of the Administration of Justice, will give the right to compensation by the State, in accordance with the law. ”.

As stated in the sentence, the company filed a claim for judicial error against an order from the Court of First Instance no. 31 of Madrid (in the district of Tetuán) which declared null and void all the actions of a mortgage procedure due to an error in the identification of the mortgage. As a consequence, the adjudication of the auctioned property was also annulled, causing economic damage.

The Supreme Court rejects the company’s appeal because it was not the judge in his brief that was wrong in the individualization of the mortgage to be foreclosed. The problem originated in the orders sent to the property registry and in the call for the auction of the assets. Proceedings, the magistrates underline, “in which the judge did not have any intervention because he did not carry them out or ratify them when resolving an appeal that could have been filed against them.” In addition, the magistrates reproach the plaintiff for having tried to change the object of his claim at the last moment, by pointing out as erroneous the order that initiated the process for processing a defective claim.

You may also like

Leave a Comment