URBAN PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAWYERS IN GRANADA

LAWYERS WE CLAIM BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDALUCIA

THE BEST ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION LAWYERS IN GRANADA

THE BEST LAWYERS FOR RIGHTS CLAIMS BEFORE THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN GRANADA

THE BEST LAWYERS FOR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION IN GRANADA

THE BEST LAWYERS OF EQUITY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS IN GRANADA

THE BEST URBAN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LAWYERS IN GRANADA

THE BEST URBAN LAW LAWYERS IN GRANADA

CONGRUENCE-INCONGRUENCE OF SENTENCES

1.- Congruence is the necessary correlation that must exist between the claim, which initiates the process (art. 399.1 LEC) and the sentence that ends it (art. 206.1.3ª LEC), in such a way that this must be the response given by the judges to the claims introduced by the plaintiff in the ruling document of the process, together with those that deserve the exceptions and resistances opposed by the defendant, and those deduced, where appropriate, in the counterclaim. Consistency therefore requires a necessary correlation between the claims of the parties duly deducted and the ruling of the sentence, taking into account the request and the reason for requesting (judgments 698/2017, of December 21; 233/2019, of 23 April; 640/2019, of November 26 and 31/2020, of January 21).

2.- A sentence is therefore incongruous, like the Civil Chamber (for all, sentences 604/2019, of November 12, and 31/2020, of January 21), if it grants more than what was requested (ultra petita ), pronounces itself on certain matters regardless of what is requested by the parties (extra petita), some of the claims sustained by the parties are left unanswered and unresolved (citra petita), as long as judicial silence cannot reasonably be interpreted as implied dismissal of the deducted claim. Being perfectly valid that it gives less than what was requested (infra petitum), which does not constitute an inconsistency violation, unless it gave less than what was admitted by the defendant.

3.- In short, the judgment on the consistency of the judicial resolution requires the confrontation between its operative part (dictum) and the object of the process, delimited, in turn, by the subjective elements of the process, the parties, as well as by the objective elements (the cause for requesting), understood as the fact or set of facts that produce legal effects and are essential for the achievement of the requested claims, and the petitum or requested claim itself (judgment of June 13, 2005). In this way, consistency is not measured in relation to the reasoning or argumentation, but by relating what is claimed in the lawsuit with the operative part of the sentence (for all, sentence 294/2012, of May 18).

4.-As this court declared in judgment 91/2006, of February 10, citing previous ones: "the cause for requesting is made up of the set of essential facts for achieving the legal consequence sought by the plaintiff (judgment of May 3, 2000 [RJ 2000, 3191]) [...] "The judgment of December 31, 1998 (RJ 1998, 9768) affirms that "docrinally and correctly the cause of requesting , as that legally relevant factual situation and susceptible, therefore, to receive by the competent judicial body, the legal protection requested.From this definition it follows the existence of the elements, whose identity is precise, such as a) a certain "factum" and b) a determined legal consequence in which the facts are subsumed".