Outline of evidence in trials

common administrative litigation

Administrative Law (International University of La Rioja)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.

Downloaded by koldo ispizua (aupakoldo@yahoo.es)
MARIA LIBANO SAN
MILLAN
Activity with Forum: Outline of evidence in common
contentious-administrative trials

The LJCA regulates the taking of evidence in its articles 60 and 61 specifically. Accordingly, the
evidence must be requested in the claim itself or in the response to the claim, by the interested
person who is taking it, who will have to meet the admission and viability requirements
contemplated in articles 52 to 57. of the LJCA. The test will be carried out within 30 days.
If the test has not been carried out within 30 days, its exercise will only be admitted if it is
demonstrated that it was not carried out for reasons beyond its control.
According to article 60 of the IJCA, we must refer to the Civil Procedure Law in a supplementary
manner. First of all, what art. 281.1 of the LEC establishes is that the evidence must have as its
object the facts that are being treated in the process, so any type of evidence that is not in
accordance with the object of the case must be inadmissible. process.

The means susceptible to taking evidence are: interrogation of the parties, public documents,
private documents, expert opinion, judicial recognition, interrogation of witnesses and will also be
admitted in accordance with the provisions of the Law, the means of reproduction of the word,
sound and image, as well as the instruments that allow archiving and knowing or reproducing
words, data, figures and mathematical operations carried out with accounting or other types of
methods, relevant to the process and provided that another means not provided for in this article
could obtain certainty about the relevant facts of the process, the court will admit it as evidence.

As we have mentioned previously, the taking of evidence must be requested in the complaint and
in the response to it. In the event that the request for evidence is not stated in the other
document, in accordance with art. 57.2 LJCA, the judge can declare the lawsuit over without
further processing for sentencing. In any case, in the event that this happens, there is the
possibility of leisurely agreeing to trial reception in accordance with art. 61 LJCA, given the
importance of the matter and therefore it is agreed to hold the hearing.

This document is available free of charge on S studocu

Downloaded by koldo ispizua (aupakoldo@yahoo.es)
MARIA LIBANO SAN
MILLAN
On the other hand, according to art. 60.2 of the LJCA, there is another possible moment in which
you take the evidence, different from the demand and its response, giving a period of five days to
the appellant to request receipt of the lawsuit in evidence, if the response of the lawsuit, new facts
have emerged that are relevant to the court's final decision.

In this sense, the Supreme Court Judgment dated November 30, 2009 states:
"...if the response to the complaint results in new facts of importance for the resolution of the
lawsuit, the appellant may request trial reception within three days following the day in which it
was communicated..." Well, If this is so with regard to reception on trial, there is no reason not to
apply the same principle when it comes to the proposal of specific means of proof whose need or
precedence arises as a result of what was stated in the answer to the application. .”

If the test is not carried out in due time and in the manner in which the interested party requested
it, it will make it very difficult to claim defenselessness in accordance with the Supreme Court
Sentence of December 30, 2003: “The defenselessness that It is denied that it occurred, as a
consequence of the lack of taking any evidence, because "there is no evidence that the
Administration has denied any of the requested evidence" and the appellant limited itself "to
making generic invocations without specifying which test it was that she wanted to take and that
the Administration was not allowed.

According to the interrogation of the parties, it is a means of proof regulated in art. 301 to 316 of
the LEC, in its art. 302 LEC tells us that the interrogation questions will be formulated in an
affirmative sense and with due clarity and precision. Without including evaluations or qualifications
and if these are incorporated, they will be considered not carried out.

Downloaded by koldo ispizua ( aupakoldo@yahoo.es )