What is the supervening lack of the object of the process?
When is a supervening lack of the object of the process there really?
The Civil Procedure Act collects supervening lack of process is your article 22 establishing:
Article 22 Completion of the process by extraprocedural settlement or lack of object. enervation special case of Eviction
1. When, demand due to supervening circumstances and the counterclaim, ceases to have legitimate interest in obtaining judicial protection intended, because they have satisfied, out of the process, the claims of the plaintiff and, if, the counterclaimant defendant or any other cause, It will be revealed this fact and, if any agreement of the parties, It shall be ordered by the court clerk completion of the process, without appropriate order for costs.
Namely, after starting the process, You may be missing legitimate interest in obtaining legal protection intended. It requires that the claim would have been satisfied. It may occur by mutual agreement between the parties or without it.
If the agreement between the parties lack, one can encourage the continuation of the process. The judicial authority may agree to terminate by supervening lack of object, when it has fully satisfied the claim of the parties.
Complete satisfaction includes costs and interest
For there is an extra-satisfaction of the claims of the application, the costs and interest are included, otherwise, the plaintiff would be harmed by not receiving the reimbursement of such expenses. It is the view expressed by the Order of the Provincial Court of Valencia (section 8) April DE14 2005. The same approach has been followed by the Auto Commercial Court number 1 Barcelona 18 October 2007.
If not considered in this way, we would be a clear case of procedural fraud: The defendant knows he will lose a claim at the last minute offers payment, pretending to save costs and interest, when he has forced the applicant to promote litigation, with the expense and inconvenience involved.
The Supreme Court has led there with supervening lack of object, when the property is sold to a third party justifying a claim for termination of the contract on the same (STS 28 October 2015) or example, when a person dies on which weighed a demand by occupation without a home title (STS 30 September 2014), among many.
In the sale of the shares acquired in a tender offer Bankia, the issuer has alleged supervening lack of the object of the process. However, the applicant's claim, which is to recover the amount lost as a result of information have provided a inveraz, It is not satisfied: therefore, no occurrence lack.
In this sense it is very graphic SAP Albacete 1 December 2015:
“Although invokes reselling 2013 is a supervening lack of procedural object is not the case: the object of the process is or was also be compensated for the loss and that compensation is not produced by the indicated resale, although it can alleviate and so takes into account the Court to reduce the amount of compensation depending on the price of such resale”.
However, in the case of preference shares and subordinated debentures, the sale of shares resulting from the exchange if they are repeatedly interpreted by some Provincial courts as a supervening lack of the object of the process, unable to reintergrarse actions if the action for annulment was deemed.
In this line, SAP highlights Valencia 11 February 2015 (section 9):
“…. This voluntary act of the plaintiff involves the supervening lack of object in the action for annulment on the grounds on consent whenever relying on Article 1303 Civil Code , it turns out that the plaintiff can not meet the restorative effect of such action and legal basis (replacement of things the state occurred at the time of conclusion of the contract), by his own act, determining the rejection of the first sustained action on the appeal, as well as this Court has established in Case 22/12/2013 (R.541/2014) and in the 26/1/2015 (Rollo 592/2014 ) because such sale stands as insurmountable obstacle to a declaration of invalidity ” because by reason of it it becomes impossible for the mutual restitution of the things which have been the subject of contract, in the terms stipulated in article 1303 Civil Code , since the applicant in time after the filing of the claim does not hold any ownership or preference shares , or of the shares of Bankia why those were exchanged, which ultimately determines the combination of a lack of action, appreciable trade, that the case results in a lack of occurrence object (art. 22 LEC) “.
The exchange of preferred shares for shares is not a case of lack of object occurrence: As indicated by the SAP Barcelona 29 October 2015:
“instance judgment understands that produced the exchange of shares for shares determined by resolution of the FROB and consented to this by actor , there would have confirmed the invalidity of the contract is intended and the supervening lack the controversial subject in this case . We understand that this conclusion is not set ; Unlike , Article 1311 CC when defining the assumptions of tacit confirmation , It requires full knowledge of the cause of nullity , the cessation of this and the exercise of an act that necessarily implies the willingness to renounce by any person having the right to invoke”.
Last, in the latter cases, you can avoid problems applying the alternative claim for compensation for damages,es, to not affecting such vicissitudes: or the damage is covered (with interest and costs) or the claim of the plaintiff is dissatisfied: there is no supervening lack without full satisfaction.