Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 1:08:36 GMT -5
The Chamber affirms that the property claim requires reevaluating the facts and that it cannot evaluate previous judicial resolutions, “ not reviewed or declared erroneous through 293 of the LOPJ regarding the conclusions reached therein in relation to ( …) to the adoption of precautionary measures for the intervention of the vehicle.” It is something that “it is not up to this Chamber to assess within the procedure established here due to the abnormal functioning of article 292 LOPJ.”
“It is clear that the claim formulated, from the beginning and by its own terms, in that it seeks to assert an abnormal operation derived from the very fact of the intervention of the vehicle and the authorization for police use, was misguided since this cannot be be made except within the Fax Lists framework of a judicial error, a case different from the abnormal functioning that is the title used for the claim from which this appeal derives, an error that cannot be based, without further ado, on the mere conclusion of the criminal process without a declaration of responsibility. any and in the existence of a judicial resolution issued by the higher jurisdictional body that, through appeal, orders the lifting of the measure.” Nor can we forget, the ruling warns, that " the very existence of a criminal case does not constitute "per se" an "abnormal" functioning , and hence the legitimacy to directly claim compensation is recognized only in the case of preventive detention followed of an acquittal sentence or a definitive dismissal order (which is not the case of the actor) but is not recognized in other cases, not even in the case of adoption of other precautionary measures other than prison in any process.
On the other hand, with regard to financial liability for the defective conservation of the seized vehicle, the resolution emphasizes that damages that respond to the mere depreciation of the vehicle over time must be excluded (13,239 euros). Furthermore, many of the budgeted concepts "do not appear as a result of defective compliance with the duty of custody nor do they, in themselves, constitute defective conservation." This is the case of the renewal of the windshield wiper blades and the drainpipes on both sides of the vehicle.
“In addition, the invoices contain concepts that correspond to equipment updates and aesthetic improvements of the vehicle, that is, improvements to the vehicle that would leave it in an updated situation with respect to the state in which it was before being judicially intervened,” The ruling maintains, which also disgraces that the woman has tried to carry out an unnecessary complete replacement of the bodywork worth more than 4,600 euros without providing "any justification or relationship between such repairs and the condition of the vehicle when it was returned to her."
Therefore, once the amounts considered inappropriate have been deducted, the National Court resolves that the woman must be compensated “for the damage caused to the vehicle as a result of a maintenance deficit ” in 484.45 euros plus 21% VAT of the amount, plus the 67.25 euros that the check-up cost, making a total of 653.43 euros.
“It is clear that the claim formulated, from the beginning and by its own terms, in that it seeks to assert an abnormal operation derived from the very fact of the intervention of the vehicle and the authorization for police use, was misguided since this cannot be be made except within the Fax Lists framework of a judicial error, a case different from the abnormal functioning that is the title used for the claim from which this appeal derives, an error that cannot be based, without further ado, on the mere conclusion of the criminal process without a declaration of responsibility. any and in the existence of a judicial resolution issued by the higher jurisdictional body that, through appeal, orders the lifting of the measure.” Nor can we forget, the ruling warns, that " the very existence of a criminal case does not constitute "per se" an "abnormal" functioning , and hence the legitimacy to directly claim compensation is recognized only in the case of preventive detention followed of an acquittal sentence or a definitive dismissal order (which is not the case of the actor) but is not recognized in other cases, not even in the case of adoption of other precautionary measures other than prison in any process.
On the other hand, with regard to financial liability for the defective conservation of the seized vehicle, the resolution emphasizes that damages that respond to the mere depreciation of the vehicle over time must be excluded (13,239 euros). Furthermore, many of the budgeted concepts "do not appear as a result of defective compliance with the duty of custody nor do they, in themselves, constitute defective conservation." This is the case of the renewal of the windshield wiper blades and the drainpipes on both sides of the vehicle.
“In addition, the invoices contain concepts that correspond to equipment updates and aesthetic improvements of the vehicle, that is, improvements to the vehicle that would leave it in an updated situation with respect to the state in which it was before being judicially intervened,” The ruling maintains, which also disgraces that the woman has tried to carry out an unnecessary complete replacement of the bodywork worth more than 4,600 euros without providing "any justification or relationship between such repairs and the condition of the vehicle when it was returned to her."
Therefore, once the amounts considered inappropriate have been deducted, the National Court resolves that the woman must be compensated “for the damage caused to the vehicle as a result of a maintenance deficit ” in 484.45 euros plus 21% VAT of the amount, plus the 67.25 euros that the check-up cost, making a total of 653.43 euros.