A) The ruling of the Supreme Court 3 rd Room 3 rd, sec. 4th of July 21, 2010, estimated according to law the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice, which rejected the compensation of damages sought by judicial error and malfunction of the Administration of Justice.
.
The Board 3 of the TS considered art. LOPJ 294 does not include the assumption that any person who has custody and later was acquitted of the crime charged against him, is entitled to compensation, but only refers to those people who "are acquitted for lack of the alleged act or for this very cause has been given free stay of proceedings", and in the case is prosecuted, it is undisputed in the record that there are reasonable grounds to agree on remand against the appellant for a crime that existed and was acquitted for lack of prosecution evidence practiced.
B) specifically stated in art. 294.1 of the Judicial Power: "1. Shall be entitled to compensation who, after suffering remand are acquitted for lack of the alleged act or for the same reason it was made auto Free proceed, provided that you have allegedly caused harm. "
Article 294 of the Judicial Power Organization Act, does not include the assumption that any person who has custody and later was acquitted of the crime charged against him, is entitled to compensation, but only refers to those people who "are acquitted for lack of the alleged act or for this very cause has been given free stay of proceedings", and in this case for the TS has been established that there reasonable grounds to agree on remand against the appellant for a crime that existed and was acquitted for lack of prosecution evidence practiced.
C) It is settled doctrine of the Board 3 of the TS , "among others, in the judgments of 12 June of 1996, January 29 and April 5 of 1999, twenty-two two thousand, 28 February, two thousand one, one of October two thousand two, October 6, two thousand six and twenty meters-June this year, which proclaims that are subsumed in Article 294 of Law Judicial Power Organization and should therefore generate a corresponding right to compensation, the assumptions made prove the absence of the accused - "no objective" - \u200b\u200band those in which it tested the lack of participation of the accused, defendant or accused - "no subjective" - \u200b\u200bthat is, existing criminal act with no proof of having participated in it.
When the acquittal in a criminal conviction of the accused was due to lack of evidence against them practiced, and not the objective or subjective absence of the facts alleged against the appellant or the disconnection of the crime they were accused, but the application of the above general principles governing criminal proceedings that determine the acquittal in cases of doubt, of course it can not be included in the judicial interpretation on Article. OLJ 294, which can extend its benefits, as has been said, both the lack of objective fact, as the subjective, but not to circumstances such as this, are not included in either category, as TS said in the ruling of 11 December 2007 in a similar action brought by another defendant accused, along with the applicant now in the same criminal.
Moreover, articles 106.2 and 121 of the Constitution which is also invoked as violated do not apply to cases under consideration for the right to compensation for detention provided for in Article 294 of the Judicial Power Organization Act, no develops any of the constitutional precepts that are also considered violated by the appellant.
D) For the TS when it is alleged as provision violated Article 292 of the Judicial Power Organization Act, which regulates the responsibility of the Administration of Justice by excessive length of criminal proceedings , to justify that claim moral damages amounting to eight hundred ninety-one thousand euros - € 891,000 - nor is grounds for compensation, when the file had a long-term, however, is justified by the complexity of the case, the participation of many people and signs have appeared in various locations that required a check difficult, the practice of a letter rogatory to the UK, whose officials delayed the response despite persistent English instructor reminders and others are proven facts set forth in the statement and the analysis of the many tests performed and the actual duration of the trial, all of which give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe complexity of the case and his statement , which have not been claimed, or were reported at that time, undue periods of inactivity attributable to the conduct of the judiciary, so can not speak of abnormal and, finally, the duration of the procedure affected the prison time preventive or damage alleged and in particular the impact and dissemination in the media would be attributable to that period, but the very existence of the process.
B) specifically stated in art. 294.1 of the Judicial Power: "1. Shall be entitled to compensation who, after suffering remand are acquitted for lack of the alleged act or for the same reason it was made auto Free proceed, provided that you have allegedly caused harm. "
Article 294 of the Judicial Power Organization Act, does not include the assumption that any person who has custody and later was acquitted of the crime charged against him, is entitled to compensation, but only refers to those people who "are acquitted for lack of the alleged act or for this very cause has been given free stay of proceedings", and in this case for the TS has been established that there reasonable grounds to agree on remand against the appellant for a crime that existed and was acquitted for lack of prosecution evidence practiced.
C) It is settled doctrine of the Board 3 of the TS , "among others, in the judgments of 12 June of 1996, January 29 and April 5 of 1999, twenty-two two thousand, 28 February, two thousand one, one of October two thousand two, October 6, two thousand six and twenty meters-June this year, which proclaims that are subsumed in Article 294 of Law Judicial Power Organization and should therefore generate a corresponding right to compensation, the assumptions made prove the absence of the accused - "no objective" - \u200b\u200band those in which it tested the lack of participation of the accused, defendant or accused - "no subjective" - \u200b\u200bthat is, existing criminal act with no proof of having participated in it.
When the acquittal in a criminal conviction of the accused was due to lack of evidence against them practiced, and not the objective or subjective absence of the facts alleged against the appellant or the disconnection of the crime they were accused, but the application of the above general principles governing criminal proceedings that determine the acquittal in cases of doubt, of course it can not be included in the judicial interpretation on Article. OLJ 294, which can extend its benefits, as has been said, both the lack of objective fact, as the subjective, but not to circumstances such as this, are not included in either category, as TS said in the ruling of 11 December 2007 in a similar action brought by another defendant accused, along with the applicant now in the same criminal.
Moreover, articles 106.2 and 121 of the Constitution which is also invoked as violated do not apply to cases under consideration for the right to compensation for detention provided for in Article 294 of the Judicial Power Organization Act, no develops any of the constitutional precepts that are also considered violated by the appellant.
D) For the TS when it is alleged as provision violated Article 292 of the Judicial Power Organization Act, which regulates the responsibility of the Administration of Justice by excessive length of criminal proceedings , to justify that claim moral damages amounting to eight hundred ninety-one thousand euros - € 891,000 - nor is grounds for compensation, when the file had a long-term, however, is justified by the complexity of the case, the participation of many people and signs have appeared in various locations that required a check difficult, the practice of a letter rogatory to the UK, whose officials delayed the response despite persistent English instructor reminders and others are proven facts set forth in the statement and the analysis of the many tests performed and the actual duration of the trial, all of which give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe complexity of the case and his statement , which have not been claimed, or were reported at that time, undue periods of inactivity attributable to the conduct of the judiciary, so can not speak of abnormal and, finally, the duration of the procedure affected the prison time preventive or damage alleged and in particular the impact and dissemination in the media would be attributable to that period, but the very existence of the process.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment