As we anticipated a few days ago, Royal Decree 537/2020, which extends the state of alarm until June 7, agrees to lift the suspension of the procedural, administrative and statutory deadlines and the expiration of rights and actions approved in its day by the RD 463/2020. This, together with the provisions of RDL 16/2020 of April 28 and the note of May 23 from the Permanent Commission of the CGPJ leaves us with the following overview in terms of deadlines:
With effects from June 4th, 2020 the suspension of the procedural deadlines. The calculation of the terms is will restart from that date, being therefore the first business day the next business day; that is, on June 5.
The deadlines for the announcement, preparation, formalization or filing of appeals against judgments and other resolutions notified during the suspension of deadlines established in RD 463/2020, and of those that are notified within twenty business days following the lifting of the suspension of the suspended procedural terms, will be extended for a period equal to that provided in its corresponding regulatory standard.
The foregoing shall not apply to the procedures whose deadlines were excepted from the suspension according to DA 2ª of RD 463/2020, of March 14.
Also with effects from June 4th, 2020 the suspension of the limitation periods and expiration of rights and actions.
With effects from June 1th, 2020 Administrative terms will be resumed, or will be restarted, if this had been provided for in a regulation with the force of law approved during the validity of the state of alarm and its extensions.
For these purposes, DA 8 of RDL 11/2020, of March 31, which adopts urgent and complementary measures in the social and economic field to deal with COVID-19, extended the term to resort administratively or to urge any other challenge, claim, conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedures that replace them in accordance with the provisions of the laws, establishing that the computation of the term for the filing of appeals may be made from the business day following the end of the alarm state.
The above is understood without prejudice to the effectiveness and enforceability of the administrative act object of appeal or challenge.
Until June 4, the suspension of all legal proceedings remains, except in cases of essential services.. The services declared essential during the state of alarm will continue to be processed preferentially once judicial activity resumes; reason why they will be the ones that initially occupy the activity of the Courts on their return to the activity, foreseeing a paralysis or slowdown of the rest in practice.
This Suspension does not imply the inability of the days to issue the resolutions nor does it affect the normal operation of the Administration of Justice in the manner determined by the CGPJ.
All the procedural actions already indicated as of June 4 They will be practiced as long as possible, taking into account the health and organizational and / or procedural requirements.
In parallel, Order JUS / 430/2020, of May 22, activates Phase 2 of the De-escalation Plan for the Administration of Justice before COVID 19, activating the reinstatement of 60-70% of the procedural and administrative processing officials , and judicial aid. Likewise, it establishes attendance shifts for the Lawyers of the Administration of Justice and afternoon work shifts for the officials.
It does not seem, however, that the slow and progressive incorporation of the officials augurs a rapid reactivation of the procedural activity and we can continue fearing that the procedural jam will be “epic”, as almost all of our youngest people tend to describe.
We cannot conclude this note without leaving one more criticism of the rush of this emergency legislator ... The Government reactivates the procedural, prescription and expiration deadlines, and the administrative ones with effect on June 4 and June 1 respectively, knowing that the extension of the state of alarm will not extend - predictably - beyond June 7 next. Despite this, it establishes ad-hoc deadlines different from those of the alarm state. With this, only one business day is gained in procedural terms and very little more in administrative terms, compared to having made the reactivation coincide with the end of the alarm state, a moment that would have been clearer and easier for everyone.
Was it necessary, for a single day, to repeal additional provisions 2 and 3 of RD 463/2020 to reactivate the suspended deadlines, instead of making everything coincide "naturally" with the effective duration of the alarm state? Of course, as long as this decision does not respond to an optimistic "message" and an approach, we do not know in exchange for what, for which the Government ends up obtaining - in discount time - its long-awaited and, for some already excessive, additional extension of alarm status.
