The Supreme Court of Justice for the first time issued a direct claim failure, based on articles 38 and 78 of Law No. 2-23 on Appealand within his motivations he explained “that this provision seeks to prevent procedural delay that characterized the previous legislation, where married failures could lead to an indefinite number of forwarding”, unnecessarily prolonging litigation.
Article 38 of the Ordinance establishes the power of the Cassation cut To act, if necessary, for the sake of a good administration of justicewhile 78 provides a rule that prohibits said court direct sentence on the bottom.
This decision of the Rooms gathered It does not violate Procedural rights of the parties involved, since they have had the opportunity to contribute the necessary evidence To base their rights, discuss them contradictory and present arguments in defense of their claims.
Case had been married three times
“The present case presents a special procedural situation, given that the process subject to the decision has had three sentences of cassation And this is the fourth time that the litigation reaches the Supreme Court of Justiceand in no case, whatever the reason for cassationthere may be a third forward, as indicated in article 78 that ends the controversy, “the judges argue in the judgment of the Rooms gathered.
In this sense, it is clarified that with this action the Cassation cut In a third instance, but replaces the jurisdiction of forwarding that issued the sentence that has been annulled, promoting the effectiveness of material law and respect for the fundamental guarantees of the intervenings in the process, configuring what the international doctrine has called Replacement judgmentwhich has the same legal nature of the married sentence and that ends the process, explains the Supreme Court of Justice In a statement.
He Opinion of the rooms gathered number SCJ-SR-24-00188, dated November 29, 2024, House without shipping, for the prohibition contained in article 78 of Law no. 2-23 above AppealJudgment no. 0030-02-2023-SSEN-00031, dated January 27, 2023, issued by the First Chamber of the Superior Administrative Court, and pronounce direct sentence based on the checks already set in it.
Litis carried almost 23 years
Litis, which was carrying in the Courts almost 23 yearsit was among national goods, a recurring part, and the Land Company sperilla, C. by A, Party. The failure of Rooms gathered It was to host, as good and valid, the demand in justiprecio initiated by the Commercial Company against the Dominican State, represented by the General Directorate of National Assets, but rejected it, “in terms of the fund for lack of evidence.”
The decision was signed by magistrates Henry Molina, Manuel Ramón Herrera Carbuccia, Francisco Antonio Jerez Mena, Manuel Alexis Read Ortiz, Fran Euclides Soto Sánchez, Nancy Idelsa Salcedo Fernández, Justinian Acosta Peralta, Samuel Amaury Arias Arzeno, María Gerinelda Garabito Ramírez, Moisés Alfredo Ferrer Landrón and Francisco Antonio Ortega Polanco.
Read Here the sentence
