The TS forces to review the case of a terminally ill couple without "a reasonable opportunity" to defend themselves at trial

The ECHR says that they were "not given the opportunity to appear at a new trial even though they did not waive their right to appear"

MADRID, 30 Sep. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has urged to review the case of a family that was evicted from their home in Fuengirola (Málaga) without having had "a reasonable opportunity" to defend themselves in the trial, as concluded by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). ).

In a ruling, reported by Europa Press, the Civil Chamber upholds the review claim filed by the couple against the decree terminating the eviction trial of the Court of First Instance Number 2 of Fuengirola, forcing the process to be reviewed again.

All of this, explains the high court, following the ruling of the ECtHR, "which expressly concludes that in the eviction trial for non-payment and claim of rent, the necessary measures were not adopted to notify the defendant tenants (in the trial of eviction) and were not given the opportunity to appear at a new trial, even though they did not waive their right to appear.

The magistrates further maintain that the "violation, by its nature and severity, entails effects that persist and cannot cease in any other way than through this review."

The ECHR explained in its ruling that the court "carried out two attempts to notify the plaintiffs." "Both attempts were made at the same address designated by the bank for the purposes of notifications to the plaintiffs. When the judicial officer went to the apartment to carry out the notification after the first unsuccessful attempt, he observed that the names appeared in the mailbox. of people other than the plaintiffs," he details.

Despite this, the ruling adds, the court "did not consider the possibility of notifying the plaintiffs at an alternative address and did not search the internal judicial search system for an alternative address." "Instead, he ordered that it be notified directly through an edict," he says.

In this sense, the court "does not consider that resorting to an edict, without any additional attempt at notification, means that measures have been taken that could have been legitimately and reasonably expected from the national authorities."

Thus, the ECHR "concludes that the authorities were not diligent in notifying the plaintiffs of the eviction procedure and that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to take part in the procedure initiated against them."

In their complaint, the couple, in addition to exposing the content of the aforementioned ECtHR ruling, argued that "the violation of a fair trial produced within the framework of the eviction procedure as a consequence of the inadmissible summons by edicts, due to its nature and severity, entails "effects that persist and cannot be terminated other than by the requested review."