😽 Stc 140/2016
🌱 Law 10 2012 of november 20, 2012 legal news
The second section within the first ground of the appeal, entitled «1.2. The harmony of the constitutional and European case law with the precautions hitherto observed by the legislator,» reviews the pronouncements made, both by this Court in STC 20/2012, of 16 February, when judging the constitutionality of the aforementioned art. 35 of Law 53/2002, which reintroduced «the fee for the exercise of jurisdictional powers»; and by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases where the State requires a fee for access to justice (art. 6.1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: ECHR). Based on these, the complaint states that taxing individuals makes Law 10/2012 a suspect category from the perspective of the fundamental right of access to jurisdiction (art. 24.1 EC) and the guarantee of free justice established in art. 119 EC.
b) The second ground of the unconstitutionality appeal filed is entitled: «Law 10/2012, of November 20, regulating certain fees in the area of the Administration of Justice and the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences violates Articles 1, 9.2, 24.1, 106 and 119 of the Constitution»; which is in turn divided into three sections.
🔆 Law 10/2012
Subsequently, in order to clarify certain pending aspects in the regulation of these fees and in order to incorporate the observations made by the Constitutional Court in its Ruling 20/2012, of 16 February, on the constitutionality of the same, the current Law 10/2012, of 20 November, was enacted, a regulation not lacking in controversy that has been amended five times to date:
We are faced with a tax of state character and enforceable throughout the national territory, whose taxable event is constituted by the exercise of jurisdictional power originated by certain procedural acts in the civil, contentious-administrative, and social orders.
🏅 General information form 696
INFORMATION NOTE ON THE JUDICIAL FEE (Law 10/2012, of November 20, regulating certain fees in the field of the Administration of Justice and the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences).
On August 15, 2016, the Ruling of the Constitutional Court 140/2016, dated July 21, 2016, was published in the Official State Gazette, declaring the unconstitutionality and nullity of the judicial fees corresponding to the contentious-administrative and social jurisdictional orders and of certain fees corresponding to processes in the civil jurisdictional order.
🦉 Court fees appeals
5 05+01:00 August 05+01:00 2016 in unconstitutionality, defenselessness, Uncategorized, court fees, Constitutional Court | Tags: rule of law, unconstitutionality, defenselessness, Constitutional Court judgment 140/2016 of 21 2016, court fees, Constitutional Court | Leave a comment
This post is more than a necessarily incomplete legal analysis on a very complex Constitutional Court judgment on court fees, the Constitutional Court judgment of July 21, 2016 that resolves the appeal of unconstitutionality No. 973/2013 filed by 109 PSOE deputies of the X Legislature against Law 10/2012 of November 20, regulating certain fees in the field of the Administration of Justice and the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences, the so-called «Court Fees Law». I will try to be informative in the legal analysis, as far as possible, but I will have to extend and even so I will only cover some aspects; it would be unacceptable the superficiality of criticism without data on a subject of this importance and social relevance and on a sentence of 70 pages and covering numerous rules. And we are not going to talk only about Law because the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman have chosen to make politics and not Law, and therefore they have to abide by the consequences of what is made clear.