We have now warned that those who ensure that rights were respected, put on a great pitiless men pledegessin not too easily, which is also our desire
Section: "Nulla dies sine linea" - The phrase of the day
Nunc admonendi SUMU, magnam curam egisse who iura sustinebant body, it shall be an litigandum facile ad hominem, et quod est nobis studio.
4 institutes, 16 of which is worth taking legal steps to recklessness, pr. (I. 4.16.pr.)
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 14/5/63 Obiols, RJ 60
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 26/2/65 Obiols, RJ 78
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 8/7/65 Obiols, RJ 82
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 13/1/66 Obiols, RJ 90
Related link
Tags: trial
What is the Aunt is as if there were
Section: "Nulla dies sine linea" - The phrase of the day
Quod non est in ACTIS, non est in world
* TSJC Ruling dated 11/1/01, RJ 1537, in relation to the burden of proof.
Tags: trial
It is contrary to civil law judge or respond considering a small part of the law and see it in its entirety
Section: "Nulla dies sine linea" - The phrase of the day
Incivile east NISI all lege a perspective Aliquat particle eius PURPOSE iudicace respondere veil.
Heavens, Digest 1, 3 In the laws of senatconsults and immemorial custom, 24 (D. 1.3.24)
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 9/2/57 Obiols, RJ 28
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 22/12/62 Obiols, RJ 59
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 8/7/65 Obiols, RJ 82
Tags: trial
The interpretation of procedural rules can not be appealed before the Constitutional Court of Appeal
Section: Juris. procedural
"In accordance with Article 86.1 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly considered the interpretation of the rules of procedure corresponds to the nature of the ordinary courts and bodies that just takes over when the constitutional resolution does not meet the issues raised when an error incurs material patent, when or where it immotivada arbitrary in the sense of not logically reasonable (see eg the judgment in the cause relapse 2006-24 RE-25 May 2007).
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled, in a coherent and reasoned that the decision of 28 March 2008 the Court of Magistrates only rule on procedural matters, specifically the possibility of further consideration of the dispute the normal procedure, that did not solve the exchange of arguments on the merits and, therefore, not violated the law of the Joint Encamp present their arguments in accordance with normal rules. As he delivered the High Court, the decision of first instance "is an Interlocutory decision resolving arguments and claims merely procedural in nature." "
Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated 12/10/09, speaker D. Maus, because, 2008-33 RE.
"However, as he reiterated that the Constitutional Court (see among other causes, RE 2008-2, 2008-5, RE, RE, 2008-9, 2008-10-RE-RE and 2008-19) function to select interpret and apply the law to cases prosecuted rests exclusively with the courts and can only violate the right to obtain a decision based on law, ie constitutional relief can only be bought if the selection, interpretation and application of the rules does not response to the claims submitted, is not motivated to incur material errors or patents is arbitrary from the perspective of logic or, exceptionally, from the legal perspective, the latter understood as synonymous with arbitrary selection, interpretation or application extravagant, is say, which differs entirely from the opinion repeatedly unanimous and consolidated the lawyers. This is the content of the right to obtain a decision based on canon law and this is the Procedure to be applied if you want to be consistent with the thesis maintained by this Court since the beginning of its activity, whereby neither the appeal nor the Constitutional Court is a last resort or a final court. "
Aunt of the Constitutional Court dated 12/10/09, speaker C. Nursery, due 2009-13, 14 or 15-RE.
Tags: trial
If "delayed or frustrated delays", which is why they were called slanderers, because by fraud and frustrating vexen in litigation with others, hence they are called sophistry of speech
Section: "Nulla dies sine linea" - The phrase of the day
"If calvitur"; you moretur frustretur you, you calumniatores independent appellati sunt, et quia for Fraud frustration Alió vexarent litibus; independent cavillatio will dictate this.
Gai: Digest 50, 16 the meaning of words, 233, pr. (D. 50.16.233.pr.)
* Judge of Appeal judgment dated 14/5/63 Obiols, RJ 60
Work began to prepare a code of civil procedure
Section: News
According to a news item appeared in the Journal of Andorra , there is the first work commissioned by the Higher Council of Justice to prepare a Code of Civil Procedure, a text base with 657 items that still require development, according reveal sources related to the committee constituted for this purpose between Judges, Magistrates and Lawyers Association.
Tags: trial
Action: accumulation
"... The feasibility of meeting the same demand or judgment, two or more actions, unless they are irreconcilable, and the exercise of a resolution and not exclude the other ..."
Aunt of Mgnfc. Judge of Appeal dated 1 July 1961, ref. XLVI.
"Whereas the logical relationships of things in general are identity of diversity or of analogy, according to their respective constituent elements are the same, identical or different if some other number, and as the elements of the processes are individualitzadors persons of the litigants (personae), the object of controversy (nothing) and the title or cause of action and the exception (cause and cause petendi excipiendi) ... "
Aunt of Mgnfc. Judge of Appeal dated 14 May 1963, ref. LX.
"... But the reciprocal behavior can arise plurality of problems or conflicts, contemporary or successive, but continuous, and hence to legal requirements of the biology and logic, in order to examine procedural overview of the phenomenon and consequences and imposes or provides appropriate treatment to all aspects of relationships and interdependence of the plural requests by school usually known as the accumulation of actions and processes, leading to the controversial unit and resolution, ...
Whereas the identity of litigation is of course the identity of the trilogy individualitzadora-subject, title, subject and, in parallel to the Roman law had execpció iudicatae king, which summarizes the contents and conditions Paulus saying: "To be determined with a plausible reason for the controversy that was enough action and one out of res judicata, ... "
Aunt of Mgnfc. Judge of Appeal dated 1 July 1961, ref. XLVI.
Tags: accumulation , trial
Working procedure
"This is a public procedure, developed for the defense of workers' rights, ie, that can not be substituted for any other kind of procedure."
Judgment dated 15 February 1996, RJ 530.
Action: Identify
"... The doctrine of processalistes becomes polarized into two theories: the individualization, whereby the demand is limited simply to expose the relationship between legal origin of the suit, the action necessary to identify the year (due next agenda) , and the evidence in, which essentially requires the constitutive expression of all the circumstances of the claim (due to remote calendar) ...
... And this trend resulted in the European legal systems, since the fifteenth century, showed a frank and articulate demands require targeting all circumstances concur to integrate the claim, ... "
Judgment Mgnfc. Jurge of Appeals dated 10 June 1952.
"Whereas, the procedure divided into phases preclusives, within which the parties have deployed activity indicated in each, as a result of the actions undertaken in the previous, and in phase or period of litigation pleadings, the parties shall endeavor to be clear and defined the terms of the debate and the basic documents on which are founded, as set out in Article 1 of the aforementioned Decree of 1st of May 1922 ... alleging both the facts and the grounds of which are based on their respective claims and oppositions, ..., on the other hand we must remember that as the defense of good faith litigation is one of the cardinal principles inspiring the procedure, the parties litigants should behave in court with loyalty and honesty, which requires, first, that none of the litigants keep in phase one of the reasons the allegations that bases its action or its opposition, and improperly booking the procedure for the conclusions, with the consequent helplessness against the litigant, ... "
Judgment of the Superior Court of Mithras, dated 26 March 1990, ref. CCCXIV.
"... The court must always put special care to maintain the purity and the regular procedure drawn up by the law, because the dominance of individualism and the old principle privatístic the civil process as a business purpose and character particular, have been replaced by a major initiative in the business of craft and design for a publicist who is in civil proceedings, not less than in criminal proceedings, the exercise of jurisdiction of the State, a preordered purposes of public or general interest: the straight application of material law and the administration of justice for peace and social tranquility. "
Judgment Mgnfc. Court of Appeals dated 26 February 1965.
"... B) the existence in the valleys of a basic ordinary civil trial, which is followed in this lawsuit, and that far from being a brief and rudimentary oral judgment, is actually a long and thoughtful written procedure, real solemnis ordo iudicorum c) that the first article of the decree of May 1922 first issued by the Court of Parliament, has "in the event of a claim, whether made in words and in writing, the Batlle appropriation require the applicant clearly and specifically the facts and titles that cover the amount of litigation and d) states that this rule does not distinguish between facts and events individualitzadors substanciadors, understanding, therefore, all of relevance to the established claim e) requires that the same article, moreover, the express reference titles that support the claim and under which the right is exercised, to clarify the exact ab initio and everything related to the standing to sue, .... "
Judgment Mgnfc. Judge of Appeal dated 10 June 1952.
Medical opinion in ex parte
Section: Juris. administrative
"... Why can not consider that this conclusion is a mere hypothesis, as it is based on the study of medical history of interest, which can be seen objectively from previous reports that open to the performances."
Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated 14 July 1995, number 95-26, 52 repertoire.
"Although the appellant argues that this conclusion is not properly supported by the results of tests carried out, it should be remembered that the existence of the aforementioned reactive depression is already contained in two reports prepared by the doctor the applicant dated 18 December 1995 and 4 March 1996, respectively .... "
Judgment of the High Court dated 16 May 1997, number 97-24, 186 repertoire.
"The results have provided expert evidence to conclude that the contested decision of the CASS is not adjusted right, because it is based on an incorrect appreciation of the circumstances that converge in this case, ie , the physical state of the party, which makes it impossible for the work activity, contrary to what the act says the object of this process, so it is from the cancellation of this resolution. "
Judgment of the High Court dated 28 April 1994, number 94-13, 13 repertoire.
Proof of confession in trial
Section: Juris. procedural
iure pro iudicatis haberi placet (Codi 7,59). "As is well known, the test of confession in court and still has a significant relevance, that translate the aphorisms east regina probationum confession and confessed in jure pro iudicatis Haber square (Code 7.59). But these aphorisms are to be made in relation to other rules or aphorisms without denying the past, limiting its scope as are listed in the Digest 42, 2, 2 where it is expected that confesses that he is wrong, what can reverse the effects of a confession of error due to justified. superior als altres mitjans que estableix la llei, ja que d'acord amb el sistema processal de lliure apreciació de la prova, la de confessió en judici no és prova plena, amb la conseqüència que l'organisme, jurisdiccional no esta obligat a seguir-la en el seu resultat, sens perjudici de la seva valoració en relació amb les altres proves practicades, però sense exclusivitat prevalent.” A second element that must be in view, is that under Andorran law, the confession at trial under oath indecissori, except for being a single test, no test and no notice is test over other provisions of law, as under the procedural system of self assessment test, the confession at trial is not full proof, with the result that the body is not obliged to follow judicial it in its result, without prejudice to its assessment in relation to other tests carried out, but not exclusively prevalent. "
Judgment of the Civil Division of the Superior Court dated 18/12/97, Aunt 100/97.
Cautio iudicatum SOLVIT: inapplicability
Section: Juris. procedural
"IV. - It is correct that the support of the application" cautio judicatum single wine "in Andorra had its foundation in Usatge" omnes hominem signatures "or other provisions of Titles I and II of the Book III, Volume I and matched the Constitutions of Catalonia. The jurisprudence of the principality had been repeatedly emphasized that this was not the basis for this exception but its real foundation was the custom, and had also declared its validity in Andorra in their true sense of security that was required to overseas applicant and lacking roots or goods in the Valley to meet the costs of the particular trial (Aunt of Magcf. Delegate Judge of Appeal of 27 February 1954, 20 June 1958, 18 March 1961, 30 October 1963, 14 and 30 October 1964, 15 December 1965, 23 July 1973 and judgment of 5 November 1975, the Supreme Court of Perpignan Aunt of 4 May 1970, and judgments of the Superior Mitra, 10 June 1957, 19 May 1987 and 12 December 1988).
Despite the foregoing, the Court recently referred to 15 December 1986 had already expressed inapplicability of the exception of roots in judgment on the principle of reciprocity an agent of French nationality is not in demand in that the country "cautio" litigants Andorra, the judgment of the Court itself of Mitra, 19 May 1987 (already mentioned) clarified that this exception could only be invoked by Andorran nationals when foreign litigation, although not enough residency or equivalent the nationality given the privilege of his nature not susceptible to extensive interpretation or application of this analog when no other consequence of the unnecessary prolongation of the trial. And also the judgment of the Court of Mitra, 12 December 1988 (the last of that Court mentioned above) in your WHEREAS III, stated that "without forgetting the traditional force in Andorra except for lack of rooted in judgment, it is true that the rejection of any modern society to unjustified discrimination in the exercise of the rights and enjoyment of the e1 legal protection (as evidenced, for example, the Latin American and Philippine Congress on Procedural Law, held in Madrid in 1955, enthusiastically approved the conclusion according to which "should not require bail or impose any interim measure to a litigant, by reason of their nationality or place of residence," vid. Aunt 30 October 1963 the Court of Appeals) and the current aspiration to achieve a true 1st single European market, further away from inappropriate distinctions, leads to the fact that although e1 Principality of Andorra has now reached a formal introduction to the European Economic Community, in tune with their aspirations, and this is still a justification for more intense and important that the restrictive practice and jurisprudence e1 Andorran attributed to the requirement for caution in roots, which is likely to lead to, if not applied by the judicial authority with prudence and caution, a great difficulty for 1st overseas demand satisfaction subjective rights, which can lead to a real denial of justice and deprivation of their own legal protection. " And then this ruling denied the exception of defending because he was not Spanish but in Andorra the same agent. And Spain is defending Mr. spots. M (folio 14) and not collected or tested or not seems to be defending the Andorran another name Alain P. ; Grounds that it would be sufficient to reject the exception here if still in force in Andorra as the repeated cautio judicatum Solvit '.
But now it is not and can not be invoked in Andorra such exception. The reasons already argued e1 Court of Mitra in his last sentence (the part that we have transcribed 1988) concerning the rejection of modern society at all unjustified discrimination in the exercise of the rights and enjoyment of the legal protection,; have reached final letter also nature in Andorra since 22 January 1996 entered into force the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 approved by Council General Valleys on 21 November 1995 and published with the endorsement of BOPA in the February 7, 1996 (No. 9 in 8). The art. 6.1 of the Convention provides that everyone is entitled to his view because it is a fairly independent impartial court established by law, to decide, among other things, dispute or civil obligations, and art. 14.1 of the Convention itself states that the enjoyment of the rights recognized by it shall be secured without any distinction based on the particular national origin.
From this term because there is no possibility or so in any case apply the repealed "cautio judicatum Solvi" Andorra. "
Judgment of the High Court dated 27 January 2000; Aunt 085/99.
Tags: trial
The contention of Concord: future prospects
Section: Public Law
You could say that the matter is resolved for Concord? The courtroom has determined who should manage these public lands?
Any citizen who pleaded before the court and obtained a ruling rejecting their claim in the usual formula that says "we dismiss and dismissed the claim brought by concerned citizens, and consecutively to absolve citizens who had been sued in justice , "has clearly lost the lawsuit and that the Mayor, and ultimately the Supreme Court, have said they had no right to what they intended. With such a ruling, the right of the parties was under discussion remains unchanged, and therefore the situation after the sentence remains the same as before. So it seems quite obvious to a question that the situation does not raise doubts, then just one of the purposes of any sentence is to provide stability and statement where there was conflict.
It has been over five years since the Supreme Court ruled on the matter in Concord, rejecting the claim of the Joint Encamp divide the land, while Canillo in defending its indivisibility. Time should be allowed to face the debate on the future of Concord, considering they are public lands, and that it develops in them the first country's economic activity; debate is doubly necessary because the judgment has not changed the location of the land. Should clarify this last conclusion, it can surprise attending the various statements and taking positions that have involved both common and seems to respond to different readings of the sentence. Thus, the sentence that ends the litigation dismissed the claim of the Joint Encamp from the area of Concord, with the same formula but rather said, and among the arguments for it declares that the land was already party since the area around 1771. In this regard the Supreme Court says two things with different legal significance: the judgment that dismisses decides what is asked and the arguments they reach this decision. From this double affirmation, in different places in the sentence, one must ask whether the reasoning of the decision or otherwise establish a new situation which may have significance, because the decision of rejecting the sentence was not creating any new situation , so the situation remains unchanged.
I understand the reasoning of the judgment, understand's assertion that the land was already in Concord since starting in 1771, has no legal significance or effectiveness in monitoring our legal tradition rooted in Romance (D. C. 7.45.7 and 42.1.1) and the constant pronouncements of our courts. The Supreme Court itself has held that the res judicata effect of the judgment (ie the link to the decision of the sentence) occurs only on "the decision, not the judge reasoned that" in the words of the reporting judge ruled that the affair of Concord (RJ1277), therefore without having any relationship to the parties and the court arguments that were used to arrive at the decision of the judgment, and with greater reason when rejection is simply not set anything new.
The negative effect of res judicata by the judgment of Concord prevent the formulation of a new trial division of the land of Concord, but in any case which raises legal boundaries separating the respective parishes, because they have not been legally established because the sentence does not issue, or could do so, a decision on this point. With the rejection of the claim filed by the Joint Encamp, I understand that all solutions on the distribution of the land of Concordia are theoretically possible, and depend on factors which could contribute to a new trial for revindicatòria action, or desllindament, which will analyze the effectiveness of the entire identified by the High Court and if the new judges that make up this opportunity to understand the Court adopted the same reasoning to solve the new dispute, or the light of the elements that 'ls provides a trial specifically for that purpose, to definitively establish the appropriate limits. In this situation, it is clear that you need to find a solution to a conflict that has not been resolved.
Besides the interesting legal arguments based on the judgment, his recitals have an undeniable social impact, then that raises citizens and institutions for centuries we have been thinking a situation that had no reason to be: the contention of Concord had no reason be, and that the common should, more or less intentionally, confused ownership issues with the possession of the land. Given the innovative nature of this surprising conclusion, we evaluate the objectivity and independence of judges of the Superior Court and its ability to abstreure's a tradition of four centuries of what we can conclude further that the composition of the Court Superior judges not to Andorra, can be a great contribution to the country, or else it may be a partial or incomplete jutjador and therefore ineffective in solving the conflict. The different branches of government, according to the judgment from a legal point of view nothing has changed, must determine how to make this contribution to ensure, from the perspective of national interest, the future these lands.
The debate occurs on public land, which determines an ideal situation for the various institutions and mechanisms that have the rule of law in deciding. So far the judiciary has done, but nothing precludes it can also make your own common involved or the General Council, not only as repositories of national sovereignty, but as managers of public interest, or otherwise Once again we have to the courts. Surely the balance of power and effectiveness of the solution would be desirable first choice, because although the administration of justice is done on behalf of the Andorran people, surely the Parliament represents a genuine expression of any the general interest.
In the case of publicly owned land, surely that should concern us all is the use and protection, then the field just born with the Concord law regulates use it as a right utilization corresponds to the neighbors. The agreement of 1672 prevents a decision on the property, and establishes the use of land by neighbors, which terms remain in full force at the date according to the Supreme Court, which determines the inadmissibility of the " conflict of cows. " More than four centuries ago because it was understood more appropriate to regulate the use of property, then only entitle the property that may be determined by the use of its owner, so without involving the ownership a relevant question. Many places in Andorra in which the boundaries between the parishes are not permanently fixed, which must respect also find solutions to the general interest.
Should therefore let the neighbors mentioned in the agreement of Concord of 1672, ultimately the citizens of Andorra, by the General Council as its most genuine representative, as determined by the use of these lands, their protection and enjoyment, just as has been done and will respect other parts of the country as an expression of interest. In this regard it is of particular current management Madriu, but with the simplicity that is the ground of Concord does not include private lands, while the self-proclaimed of Commons should not be an obstacle to the solution the conflict. Appropriate to remember at this point that public lands can not be of any use planning, to mandate by law of the land, very suitable to limit the pretext of social housing should not be repealed.
16/5/06
