Has the Judicial Secretary Violated Free Justice Law in Cost Execution?

Question from DJE, Has the Judicial Secretary Violated Free Justice Law in Cost Execution?

Answer from AI:

In the legal scenario presented, the judicial secretary’s actions appear to potentially violate the law, specifically Article 36.2 of the Ley de Asistencia Jurídica Gratuita. Here’s a structured summary of the situation and the reasoning:

1. Free Justice Beneficiary Status: The individual is a beneficiary of free justice, which typically exempts them from court costs. This status should protect them from coercive measures to collect such costs.

2. Article 36.2 Provisions: This article likely prohibits the coercive execution of court costs for beneficiaries of free justice, even if the costs were assessed earlier. The absence of evidence from the executor about the defendant’s improved financial situation further supports the argument that the execution is invalid.

3. Procedural Considerations: The user submitted a written document asserting their rights, which the judicial secretary disregarded. This disregard may constitute a procedural error, as the secretary should have considered the ongoing validity of the free justice status.

4. Lack of Challenge in 2014: While the costs were not challenged initially, the user’s current status as a beneficiary may override this, especially if the law allows revisiting the assessment based on continued eligibility.

5. Potential Judicial Secretary Violation: The secretary’s failure to uphold the protections under Article 36.2 may indicate a violation of the law, as the provisions should prevent coercive collection of costs from a free justice beneficiary.

6. Recommendation for Legal Advice: Given the complexity and potential for error, consulting a legal professional is advisable to ensure the user’s rights are protected and to explore possible remedies.

In conclusion, the judicial secretary’s actions may be in violation of the law, but a thorough legal review is necessary to confirm this. The user should seek professional legal advice to address this matter effectively.