Patrimonial responsibility of the state for the operation of the Administration of Justice

Judicial error

The patrimonial responsibility of the Public Administrations is framed

within the so-called non-contractual liability and is one that

arises outside of agreements and contracts with the Administration. Bliss

Responsibility supposes an important guarantee for the company against

administrative action, since, if a citizen suffers an injury to his

goods or rights as a result of this action or operation of

public services, the Public Administration responds objectively, it is

that is, regardless of the idea of ​​guilt. This warranty is not absolute and

It is only recognized when the requirements established by the Law with respect to

nuances and specifications made by the jurisprudence of such

requirements.

Regarding the legal regime of patrimonial responsibility, it should be taken into account

account the provisions of Law 40/2015, of October 1, on the Legal Regime

of the Public Sector (LRJSP), articles 32 to 37, which encompass the

principles and substantive aspects of the public responsibility system and in the

Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of the

Public Administrations (LPAC), which includes the

particularities applicable to the processing of patrimonial responsibility in

its articles 24.1, 35.1 h), 61.4, 65, 67, 81, 82.5, 86.5, 91, 92, 96.4 and 114.

When we demand patrimonial responsibility from the Administration, we must

prove the existence of damage, this damage must be a consequence of the

operation of a public service, it must also be a damage that the

citizen does not have the legal duty to support because it is not required by law,

which makes it unlawful. Finally, there must be a relationship

causality between the damage suffered by the individual in his property and rights and the

administrative action. Likewise, in causing the damage there should be no

Force Majeure. Second.

The patrimonial responsibility of the State for the operation of the

Administration of Justice is regulated in articles 292 to 297 of the Law

Organic 6/1985, of July 1, of the Judicial Power.

Likewise, ON THE JUDICIAL ERROR we have that article 121 of the Constitution recognizes the right to be compensated for damages caused due to judicial error and those that are a consequence of the abnormal functioning of the Justice administration. The latter are those that take place when produce undue delays, when the disappearance or the deterioration of goods deposited in the courts; the confusions produced at the time of blocking embargoes; the lack of notification of certain actions judicial; the mistaken delivery of money made available to the court then it cannot be recovered etc. The judicial error, on the other hand, can come from an error of law derived from the unfair application of the legal system or from an error derived from the appreciation of the facts and the valuation of the test media. Judicial error can only be committed by judges and magistrates endowed with power to judge and execute what is judged as follows from the Constitution. The judicial error is revealed through sentences, cars and provisions. It can occur in any jurisdictional order, that is, It is not only limited to the criminal jurisdictional order, although the judicial error can arise in any jurisdictional order, it is obvious that when it takes place in the criminal sphere generates greater controversy and conflict, especially when an undue deprivation of one of our most important rights takes place. precious as freedom. It is true that through the resource system Ordinary these errors can be corrected, but on many occasions it is not sufficient or rather efficient and there are cases in which the individual assumes the consequences of the error unfairly. The recognition of the judicial error, since it is such a qualified error, is complex and it must be the Supreme Court who appreciates it, the procedure to achieve compensation is confusing, which means that sometimes the affected desist from claiming, since it is necessary to invest time and means economic. Even agreeing to throw the procedure forward, it can happen that the Ministry of Justice, which is the body before which claims must be made inadmissible the claim, which forces to appeal this time before the High Court National, thus initiating a new procedure.

One wonders if the system of patrimonial responsibility of the State for judicial error, instead of supposing a guarantee for the citizen, become an obstacle, as a consequence of the rigidity and inflexibility required by the Supreme Court to recognize the existence of the error. What indicates the jurisprudence of the High Court, we must be before a resolution vitiated by a crass, patent, indubitable and incontestable error, which has provoked illogical, irrational, grotesque factual or legal conclusions or absurd, that break the harmony of the legal order.