The suspension of the terms established by Royal Decree 463/2020 has generated some uncertainty in legal agents and operators due to the confusion of terms and as a consequence of the imprecision in the drafting of the Additional Provisions 2, 3 and 4 of the aforementioned Royal Decree.
The State Advocacy has made a correct criticism of the terminological confusion between the concepts "term" and "term", clarifying that the concept "term" refers to the indication of a certain day, and that the concept "term" is the period of time between an initial day and a final day.
Given the doubts generated and the possible different interpretations, the State Attorney has also considered it necessary to clarify the differences between the concepts "suspension" and "interruption". The first concept of suspension implies the arrest of it, and its resumption when the cause disappears, leaving the days of the term that are pending consumption. On the contrary, the term interruption implies the “resetting” of the term, that is, that once the interrupting cause has disappeared, the term is counted again from zero.
After these criticisms of the interruptive and suspensive measures, on May 30, Royal Decree Law 16/2020 came into force, enabling the month of August and regulating the restart of deadlines.
The authorization of the month of August, in addition to raising some controversy for not respecting the rest of Lawyers and Attorneys, generated new interpretative doubts about whether said authorization would be for the sole purposes of legal proceedings, not affecting the calculation of deadlines.
Given these doubts, the CGPJ published the "General criteria for the preparation of plans for the resumption of judicial activity by the Government Chambers of the courts”Where he recommended (i) limiting oral hearings as much as possible; (ii) communicate the indications for said period to the parties with sufficient time in advance, preferably before June 15 (the Bar Associations have also requested this); (iii) and to reduce to the minimum essential the practice of notifications whose term expires between August 11 and 31.
Regarding the start of the computation of procedural deadlines, in the rule finally approved - and contrary to what the State Advocacy stated in the CGPJ proposal - it has been established that the deadlines will be computed again from the beginning.
On the other hand, the Royal Decree Law has not clarified what happens with the substantive prescription and expiration terms, although No. it seems logical that, for example, the 5-year statute of limitations for personal actions in art. 1964.2 of the Civil Code is reborn, starting its computation again from scratch, from June 5.
In conclusion, as we reported in our previous publication on May 26, the procedural deadlines are restarted from the business day following June 4, regardless of whether they are for days, months or years - since the norm does not distinguish. Although there is no clear solution or computation rule on the suspension of the statute of limitations and the expiration of rights and actions, it is more prudent to think that these terms were only "suspended", reactivating on June 5 (inclusive).
For this, except for legislative surprise, the most cautious and prudent interpretation possible should be used in order to avoid exclusion or missed deadlines. In any case, We recommend that you get advice and contact us to analyze your specific case.
