the Government's approval of two bills that are aimed at streamlining the Justice alleged, one aimed at streamlining the civil and administrative litigation and another that regulates the use of new technologies, delete important procedural rights of litigants
Indeed, under the guise of speed and fluidity to judicial activity, the bill measures procedural streamlining, pushes reforms in the civil courts and administrative litigation aimed at simplifying the process and reduce supposedly repeat, time and costs through the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy and streamlining the system of resources (sic), eliminating a stroke the appeal against the sentences handed down in oral proceedings.
Thus, the remedy of appeal in trials for matters of less than 6,000 euros in the civil courts, competent to claim amounts, so that the lower court decision shall be final and not appealable . And also up 150,000 euros to 800,000 euros minimum amounts to appeal to the Civil and Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court today exponent of knowledge of our health law, see few procedures of professional responsibility, unless an increase in the amounts of claims with grave consequences in the health insurance industry.
The arguments of the Explanatory Memorandum are debatable due to its negative cutting rights, and even folding CGPJ official data, two of whose members voted against the report favorable to the bill. The exclusion of certain resources is permissible in certain processes, but raising the reform is not a specific answer, but a blank slate that requires a study and a broader debate that the government intended, when he left eight months of legislative activity
can not cut the guarantees of citizens to speed justice or to reduce litigation, it is clear that there is no justification to suppress the appeal in oral trials, creating situations where two courts issued conflicting rulings in a case with a value of less than 6,000 euros and can not be appealed. And what is in the jurisdiction Contentious jurisdiction of the Administration, are limited resources, placing them in a situation of disadvantage health professionals to the Administration, which will affect and will not guarantee the fundamental principle of effective judicial protection.
appellate interest to go to the Supreme Court should not go hand in hand with the amount of an item, although this has been traditionally, but the amount available, except that now it is intended that the Civil and Administrative Boards are for major creditors and the government or those who, by their economic capacity, raise very large sums disputes.
is true that justice requires reforms and agility, but not this way of trying to reduce the principal internal quality filter and unification of doctrine of judicial decisions, as this is said very little about security and legal certainty. If in Health calls for a second opinion in court why not?
Posted in Medical Writing on Thursday, March 11, 2011. Number 1414. Year VII.
Indeed, under the guise of speed and fluidity to judicial activity, the bill measures procedural streamlining, pushes reforms in the civil courts and administrative litigation aimed at simplifying the process and reduce supposedly repeat, time and costs through the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy and streamlining the system of resources (sic), eliminating a stroke the appeal against the sentences handed down in oral proceedings.
Thus, the remedy of appeal in trials for matters of less than 6,000 euros in the civil courts, competent to claim amounts, so that the lower court decision shall be final and not appealable . And also up 150,000 euros to 800,000 euros minimum amounts to appeal to the Civil and Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court today exponent of knowledge of our health law, see few procedures of professional responsibility, unless an increase in the amounts of claims with grave consequences in the health insurance industry.
The arguments of the Explanatory Memorandum are debatable due to its negative cutting rights, and even folding CGPJ official data, two of whose members voted against the report favorable to the bill. The exclusion of certain resources is permissible in certain processes, but raising the reform is not a specific answer, but a blank slate that requires a study and a broader debate that the government intended, when he left eight months of legislative activity
can not cut the guarantees of citizens to speed justice or to reduce litigation, it is clear that there is no justification to suppress the appeal in oral trials, creating situations where two courts issued conflicting rulings in a case with a value of less than 6,000 euros and can not be appealed. And what is in the jurisdiction Contentious jurisdiction of the Administration, are limited resources, placing them in a situation of disadvantage health professionals to the Administration, which will affect and will not guarantee the fundamental principle of effective judicial protection.
appellate interest to go to the Supreme Court should not go hand in hand with the amount of an item, although this has been traditionally, but the amount available, except that now it is intended that the Civil and Administrative Boards are for major creditors and the government or those who, by their economic capacity, raise very large sums disputes.
is true that justice requires reforms and agility, but not this way of trying to reduce the principal internal quality filter and unification of doctrine of judicial decisions, as this is said very little about security and legal certainty. If in Health calls for a second opinion in court why not?
Posted in Medical Writing on Thursday, March 11, 2011. Number 1414. Year VII.
0 comments:
Post a Comment