The lawyer who took the late trials to the Constitutional Court requests protection against a new appointment for 2025

It is ugly that it takes more than two years to hold a trial for a case in which a non-contributory benefit was denied for an unemployed person

MADRID, 29 Abr. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The lawyer who took the late trials to the Constitutional Court (TC) goes again to the guarantee court, this time to request protection before a hearing that has been scheduled for October 22, 2025 in a social court in Seville for a claim regarding Social Security benefits.

In the amparo lawsuit, to which Europa Press has had access, the lawyer Daniel Sánchez Bernal has insisted on the fact that a trial was scheduled for "plus three and a half years from the filing of the lawsuit", alleging that it violates the right of his client to effective judicial protection and to a process without undue delay.

"The conclusive fact for the request for amparo is that, despite having tried to get the judicial body to nullify this very late indication, in the case of a claim for denial of a benefit as basic and important for the defendant as active income of insertion --a non-contributory benefit for the unemployed--, finally the judicial body maintains the act of judgment for the next day October 22, 2025", the lawyer stressed.

The lawyer has stressed that he tried "by all possible means" not to be forced to request constitutional protection, but "it was unsuccessful" after exhausting all the means provided by the norm to go to the guarantee court.

Within the framework of the lawsuit, the lawyer recalled that the Constitutional Court has already ruled on the late statements and pointed out that given the delays in holding trials due to lack of means in the judicial bodies, it is up to the State to guarantee the necessary personal and material means. for the "correct development" of Justice.

Thus, Sánchez Bernal has ensured that, according to constitutional doctrine, judicial decisions must contain the elements and reasons for judgment that allow knowing what the criteria for adopting said decision have been. And he has stressed that, in this case, "there is no consideration of the fundamental rights affected."

Although he has pointed out 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", he has stated that this "does not justify the excessive delay in more than three and a half years".

In this sense, it has indicated that the Constitutional Law has already established that "the appointment of a matter without complexity after two or more years infringes the fundamental right to a process without undue delay."

For this reason, he has asked the TC in his lawsuit to declare the nullity of the resolution by which the trial of his client is set for October 2025.