Including a brand new twist on Articles 214 and 215 of the Spanish Regulation of Civil Process, Industrial Courtroom no. 1 in Oviedo declared, by way of an Order of 10 February 2022 that when a request for clarification of a call has been resolved, solely the content material associated to the clarification that was requested may be appealed, however not the stated determination in its entirety.

The precept of the unchangeability of courtroom selections as soon as they’ve been signed, set forth in Article 214 of the Spanish Regulation of Civil Process (hereinafter “LEC“, by its Spanish acronym), doesn’t forestall them from being clarified with regard to any obscure idea, rectified in the event that they endure from a cloth or arithmetic error, or corrected or supplemented within the phrases offered for in Article 215 of LEC.

In accordance with the provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article 215 of LEC, when a clarification, rectification, correction, or complement of a courtroom determination is requested, the interval for submitting different pertinent appeals towards such courtroom determination is interrupted.

Settled case-law establishes that these procedural treatments can’t be used for functions aside from these particularly offered for within the legislation. Particularly, they can’t be used for dilatory functions, i.e., geared toward artificially extending the legally established interval for submitting the pertinent appeals.

On this regard, the above talked about courtroom determination of Industrial Courtroom no. 1 in Oviedo (“the Courtroom“) has gone one step additional. The Courtroom has declared that when a request for clarification of a call has been dictated, solely the content material that has been object of clarification may be appealed, however not the choice in its entirety; contemplating it procedural fraud to try to request a clarification on a secondary level to enchantment the primary level later.

On this explicit case, the plaintiff filed a short requesting clarification on a single level, and its request didn’t include “the slightest criticism or signal of disagreement with the content material of the order.”

As soon as stated determination had been clarified by the Courtroom, the plaintiff took the chance to, within the phrases of the Courtroom, “convert this tacit settlement with probably the most radical opposition to the substantive content material” of the courtroom determination, that’s, exactly interesting what was not the article of any clarification.

The Justice of the Peace-Choose considers that the rationale behind article 215.5 of LEC isn’t any aside from the understanding that “the appellant can not adequately assemble his enchantment with out understanding the content material of the clarification or complement,” and that since none of this has occurred within the case, “the procedural fraud is apparent, and the response of the authorized system is obvious.”

In conclusion, and though the analysed decision doesn’t represent the bulk place amongst our courts, when pondering of interesting a courtroom determination, excessive precautions must be taken within the calculation of the durations, particularly if any clarification, correction, rectification, and complement foreseen in articles 214 and 215 of LEC has been formulated or is meant to be formulated. It might even be prudent to analyse whether or not it’s advisable to state, within the request for clarification, any disagreement with the courtroom determination or the intention to enchantment primarily based on the results of the request made.