The Galicia Superior Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) examines, on December 9, 2020, the limits on the freedom of expression of the letters when actuan ante the tribunals. The sanction of three months suspension of the ownership of the tax was reviewed by a lawyer by the Council of the Galega Avogacía.
Following the case (available here), the freedom of expression of what goosebumps are not unlimited and the possible excesses should be corrected. As affirma the Constitutional Tribunal, the ownership of the abogacía “has value in the market in which it is owned, and attaches to its functionality for the log of the finalities that justify its privileged regime”, without embargo, it does not mean “que carezca of limits without ampere the discount of minimum respect debit to the demas parts present in the procedure ”.
Following this constitutional doctrine, the General Court recognizes that “judicial proceedings have their marks of discussion in which the ownership of the right of defense allows them to be rebutted which are not admissible in the present life”, but this is not significant. justified “any type of expression or reference to the other party or the professionals”. In the judgment of the Chamber, in order to “determine whether the limits of the right of defense have been exceeded, whether to weigh down the competing powers, it is to decide what to do, what to do and what to do”.
The sanction, in a written statement addressed to Juzgado, describes the action of the letter of the Administration of Justice (LAJ) as a “cumulative procedural desatinos merecedores de expediente explinario”, the accusation “de mala fe hata una parta” y tach of “illegal, amoral, unjust and prejudicial”.
It also added that “the Secretariat is not located in Ley y al Derecho, demonstrating a party without limits in addition to a manifesto with the Letrada”.
The tribunal considers that the ownership of the right of defense and the freedom of expression that includes the content of the written writings by the letter to Juzgado. Evidence of the disproportion of this act, at the judgment of the Chamber, is that at a first moment, with an intention to increase its responsibility, attribute the authority of the scribes to the prosecutor.
In conclusion, in the judgment of the Court of First Instance, “the horror of the expressions and the gravity of the accusations made” were the merits of the impunity.