Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 0:08:02 GMT -6
The National Court has partially upheld the appeal filed by a woman against the administrative resolution that denied her compensation for the damage caused by the police to a vehicle that was seized while they were using it . However, the court recognizes 653 euros of the more than 47,700 that were claimed .
The claimant was the subject of a judicial procedure in which an entry and search was carried out at her home. The vehicle, a Mercedes model CLA 220, was seized and the Court of Instruction 21 of Barcelona authorized its use for police purposes . Ten months later, once the Provincial Court of Barcelona revoked the order that allowed the intervention, the car was returned to the claimant. According to the woman, the vehicle “ was in a deplorable state , clearly damaged.”
The affected party claimed 47,769 euros plus Fax Lists legal interest from the day of the intervention, which she quantified at 6,235 euros. The main amount contained expenses for depreciation of the vehicle (13,239 euros), repair of damage to the car (8,349 euros), expert opinion (592 euros) or compensation for the disablement of the vehicle during the embargo period for a sum of 25,587 euros. .
On the one hand, the court rules out that compensation is appropriate for the damages claimed that appear directly or indirectly linked to the judicially directed criminal investigation and to the precautionary measure of intervention of the vehicle for which the largest sum of money was claimed.
The ruling states that the Spanish Constitution recognizes the right to be compensated for damages caused to individuals as a consequence of the operation of the public services of the Administration (article 106 CE) and for judicial error or as a consequence of the abnormal operation of the Administration. Administration of Justice (article 121 CE) and refers to the Law for its development. Articles 292 to 297 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary address this issue. The resolution clearly differentiates judicial error from the abnormal functioning of Justice. “According to well-known jurisprudence, judicial error consists of the judge's inattention to data of an indisputable nature in a resolution that breaks the harmony of the legal order or in the decision that wrongly interprets the legal order, if it is an interpretation that is not sustainable by any acceptable interpretative method in judicial practice", while "abnormal functioning encompasses any defect in the performance of courts or tribunals , conceived as an organic complex in which various people, services, media and activities are integrated."
The claimant was the subject of a judicial procedure in which an entry and search was carried out at her home. The vehicle, a Mercedes model CLA 220, was seized and the Court of Instruction 21 of Barcelona authorized its use for police purposes . Ten months later, once the Provincial Court of Barcelona revoked the order that allowed the intervention, the car was returned to the claimant. According to the woman, the vehicle “ was in a deplorable state , clearly damaged.”
The affected party claimed 47,769 euros plus Fax Lists legal interest from the day of the intervention, which she quantified at 6,235 euros. The main amount contained expenses for depreciation of the vehicle (13,239 euros), repair of damage to the car (8,349 euros), expert opinion (592 euros) or compensation for the disablement of the vehicle during the embargo period for a sum of 25,587 euros. .
On the one hand, the court rules out that compensation is appropriate for the damages claimed that appear directly or indirectly linked to the judicially directed criminal investigation and to the precautionary measure of intervention of the vehicle for which the largest sum of money was claimed.
The ruling states that the Spanish Constitution recognizes the right to be compensated for damages caused to individuals as a consequence of the operation of the public services of the Administration (article 106 CE) and for judicial error or as a consequence of the abnormal operation of the Administration. Administration of Justice (article 121 CE) and refers to the Law for its development. Articles 292 to 297 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary address this issue. The resolution clearly differentiates judicial error from the abnormal functioning of Justice. “According to well-known jurisprudence, judicial error consists of the judge's inattention to data of an indisputable nature in a resolution that breaks the harmony of the legal order or in the decision that wrongly interprets the legal order, if it is an interpretation that is not sustainable by any acceptable interpretative method in judicial practice", while "abnormal functioning encompasses any defect in the performance of courts or tribunals , conceived as an organic complex in which various people, services, media and activities are integrated."