He says that the problem of late notifications does not serve as an excuse to justify the delay
MADRID, 17 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Constitutional Court (TC) has indicated that in the face of delays in holding trials due to lack of resources in the judicial bodies, it is up to the State to guarantee the personal and material resources necessary for the “correct development” of Justice.
This is how the court of guarantees recalls it in the sentence, whose ruling was brought forward a week ago, which estimates the appeal of a lawyer from Seville who protested that a client of his had to wait until 2024 to hold a labor trial.
In the ruling, to which Europa Press has had access, the Constitutional Court recalls that already in 2014 it ruled that if judges and courts are required to fulfill their function “as quickly as the normal duration of the processes allows”, for this it is a “need” for the State to “provide the necessary personal and material means for the proper performance of functions.”
For the TC, that the delays are something structural “cannot” deprive the citizenry of respecting a reasonable term, because if the right to a process without undue delay is not violated.
It rejects that the delay due to structural reasons or work overload not attributable to the judicial body –the cause alleged by the Social Court to justify the delay in the trial– is a “sufficient” argument for not allowing the appeal, given that “the citizen is oblivious to these circumstances” and the delay is “notorious”.
Nor does he see it as enough that the court offered as a solution “to take note” of the lawyer’s complaint to anticipate the signaling if there were free gaps on the agenda, a proposal that “does not meet the minimum requirements of the principle of legal certainty.”
The Constitution cites the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that “obliges” states to organize their justice system so that their courts can meet each of its demands, highlighting in particular respect for the right to obtain a final judicial decision “in a reasonable time.”
And he mentions that the European Union recognizes as a “right and obligation” that the processes be resolved in time, in order to prevent the phrase “from becoming a reality” that “nothing resembles injustice as much as delayed justice”, attributed to the philosopher Seneca.
The magistrates have taken into account when assessing the appeal that, although the litigation itself lacks special complexity, since compensation is claimed for the refusal of the university to formalize a postdoctoral contract, even so the claim has a direct impact in the working life of the appellant, who may be left unemployed and without economic income.
But, in addition, the First Chamber points out that the time lapse between the presentation of the claim and the signaling of the trial exceeded the average resolution times of equivalent matters in the Social Courts of Spain. Specifically, and according to the data provided by the TC, in 2021 it stood at 14.5 months, according to statistics from the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ).
Thus, the TC has ordered the court to make a new “respectful” statement with the injured fundamental right, although it should be remembered that the trial has already been advanced to December 2022.
The events date back to June 2021, when the lawyer Daniel Sánchez Bernal filed a labor lawsuit before the Social Court Number 11 of Seville demanding compensation for damages from the university of the Andalusian capital for his client for “breach of the formalization of the postdoctoral contract”.
The lawsuit was admitted by the court, which indicated to the lawyer that the conciliation act and the trial, in case the parties did not reach an agreement, were set for November 7, 2024, that is, more than three years later, although finally the hearing will be held in December 2022 after the court relocated it.
His appeal to the TC drew attention to the fact that this date meant waiting “more than three years”, which –the plaintiff’s lawyer put forward– violated the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and, specifically, to a process without undue delays.
In addition, he stressed that in the workplace this delay is a particular detriment because it usually leads to “many defendants resigning themselves to resorting to judicial assistance to defend their legitimate claims.” “In many cases, these are workers who have not even received the minimum legal compensation,” he stressed.
In the specific case of Seville, the lawyer explained to the TC, “the situation is aggravated because trials are already being indicated for” the year 2026, which he considered “a real aberration, a flagrant violation of the right to effective judicial protection” .
Sánchez Bernal emphasized in his appeal the “undeniable structural shortcomings that arise with the increase in the number of cases, the lack of personal and material resources, as well as the high workload”, in part caused by the pandemic.
The Constitutional Prosecutor reported in September in favor of partially upholding the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the TC and declaring that his fundamental right to a judicial process without undue delay had been violated.