Autor
Palabras clave
Derecho de acceso al recurso
inadmisión de un recurso de casación por incumplimiento de un requisito que no era exigible en el momento de su presentación
los cambios jurisprudenciales y su aplicación retroactiva.
Resumen
La Sentencia del TEDH de 26 de mayo de 2020 ha estimado la demanda de una ciudadana española que, en su día, se vio privada, indebidamente, de su derecho de acceso al recurso de casación. Su recurso, como muchos otros en aquel momento, fue inadmitido como consecuencia de un cambio jurisprudencial que exigió el cumplimiento de un requisito nuevo que, aparte de no estar previsto en la ley, fue aplicado a recursos que ya estaban presentados sin dar a los recurrentes la posibilidad de cumplirlo. La interesada interpuso recurso de amparo y el Tribunal Constitucional lo desestimó en una Sentencia —la 53/2015— que tiene un importante voto particular. Finalmente, el TEDH ha declarado que el Tribunal Supremo violó el art. 6 del Convenio y vulneró su derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva.
Keywords
Right of appeal; inadmissibility of an appeal for non-compliance with a requirement that was not enforceable at the time of being filed; the retroactive application of new case-law.
Abstract
The ECtHR Judgment of May 26, 2020 has upheld the claim of a Spanish citizen who was unduly deprived of her right to appeal before the Spanish Supreme Court. Her appeal before the national court was refused, like many others, on the grounds of a new requirement for filing appeals, unexpectedly introduced by the own Supreme Court. Oher circumstances of the case deserve being highlighted: no legal provision had entitled the Supreme Court to introduce such a new requirement; this new requisite was applied to appeals which had been previously filed; and, in addition, affected appellants were not given the opportunity to fulfil the new requirements. After the refusal, the appellant brought the case before the Spanish Constitutional Court, which also dismissed the claim —Judgement 53/2015—, although a well-founded dissenting vote was issued. In the end, the ECHR has found that the Spanish Supreme Court had infringed Article 6 of the Convention and violated the right to effective judicial protection.