Constitutional

The Sevillian lawyer Daniel Sanchez Bernal, which obtained the protection of the Constitutional Court for the late indications, has once again appealed to the guarantee court, in relation to another employment lawsuit which had initially been indicated for January 2024 and subsequently brought forward to 20 June 2023.

The lawyer points out in his case, which he registered this Tuesday in the Constitutional Court, that the Social Court number 7 of Seville has kept the appointment for the conciliation and trial acts for June 20, 2023, and the request for amparo is formulated for various reasons, including the “failure of the right to obtain effective judicial protection related to the absence, in the contested resolutions, of a motivation that complies with the external canon of constitutionality required by article 24-1 of the EC”.

Similarly, the lawyer believes that the right to effective judicial protection has been violated in his “acceptance of the right to a trial without undue delay (art. 24-2° EC)”.

In the lawsuit, Daniel Sánchez Bernal recalls the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court of October 2022, which states that “Our Constitution has recognized the fundamental right toa process without undue delay autonomously with respect to the right to effective judicial protection, without this entailing ignorance of the undeniable connections existing between the two rights; since the right to jurisdiction contemplated by art. 24. 1 EC cannot be understood without considering the moment in which the judicial protection of individual rights and legitimate interests must be ensured».

Therefore, according to the constitutional doctrine, the motivation “must be strengthened” because, having an autonomous nature, in addition to being infringed on the fundamental right referred to in art. 24-1° EC (right to effective judicial protection) another fundamental right is also violated, such as that of art. 24-2nd CE (right to a trial without undue delay).

“A late indication, as is the subject of this amparo request (initially for January 2024 and then anticipated for June 2023), involves the violation, at least, of the artright to effective judicial protection in the sense of the right to a trial without undue delay”says the lawyer.

In this sense, the lawsuit claims that “there is no doubt that the first appointment for the conciliation and hearing acts on 25 January 2024 harms the right to effective judicial protection and to a trial without delay. It is also violated by the subsequent advance to June 20, 2023″, therefore, this amparo lawsuit presents a “special constitutional relevance subject to protection by this Court”.

The lawyer argues that “the structural deficiencies that arise with the increase in the number of cases, the lack of personal and material means, as well as the high workload are undeniable”, and also highlighted “the great work done by all the professionals of the Administration of Justice (Judicial Agents, Processors and Proceeding Officers, Lawyers and Judges of the Justice Administration, among others) in trying to solve the endemic saturation of the courts.

But despite this, he insists on the fact that “these circumstances do not justify the excessive temporality both in the appointment set for January 25, 2024 and in the one, finally, brought forward to June 20, 2023, which implies the violation of the right to a trial without undue delay and effective judicial protection”.