Preliminary Written Proceedings: A Step Towards Speeding Up Fast-Track Proceedings
One of the most important changes in relation to fast-track proceedings is the introduction of preliminary written proceedings (tramitación escrita previa) as a new step after the statement of defence. The preliminary written proceedings are regulated in the newly included article 438.8 LEC and are initiated by a order of the court issued after the statement of defence. Both parties then may submit their evidence and any objections to the defences raised by the defendant within five days.
The measure is intended to avoid unnecessary delays in the proceedings. However, it is to be expected that the parties will submit their evidence and objections to defences close to the end of the said time limit to keep the other party from knowing them beforehand.
Challenging Evidence: A Time Limit of Three Days
If one party challenges the evidence submitted, the court will grant the other party an additional period of three days to respond to the challenge. This phase is important to ensure that all evidence is submitted and admitted in accordance with the applicable norms.
A New Approach to Hearings
The new law also contains an important change regarding hearings (vista): the court may decide by virtue of an order not to hold a hearing if it does not consider it necessary, even if the parties requested it. The court may come to this decision, for example, if there is no relevant evidence to be presented or discussed. As such, holding a hearing is no longer a mandatory requirement and no prerequisite for the judgment, i.e. the ruling may be delivered without a hearing if the judge considers that no additional evidence is required.
This change reflects a fundamental reorientation of fast-track proceedings, which aims to increase procedural efficiency and avoid unnecessary steps that prolong proceedings without adding new elements.
The reform also clarifies that the decision on the relevance of the hearing does not appertain to the parties but to the court and is taken based on the admitted evidence. In short, the role of the judge is strengthened, and they are given more discretion when determining the procedural steps, allowing for more flexible proceedings. As a result, a hearing before the court will only be ordered if necessary.
The Court And Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution
In line with the general tendency of the reform to promote out-of-court dispute resolution, article 443 LEC introduces an interesting option: before the examination of evidence begins, the court may offer the parties the possibility of referring the matter to an appropriate means of dispute resolution (ADR). In some cases, this alternative can have a significant impact, as the proceedings are temporarily suspended, if both parties agree, in order to reach an agreement without the need for a hearing.
If the chosen out-of-court negotiations or means of dispute resolution lead to a full agreement, the court may discontinue the proceedings if judicial ratification of the agreement has been requested. If only a partial agreement or no agreement is reached, the court may lift the suspension and continue the hearing for the examination of evidence.
Changes Regarding the Hearing: Introduction of Videoconference
The legislative reform also affects the conduct of the hearing. A the decision of the judge, the parties may now either appear in the court in person or participate using videoconference tools. This brings greater flexibility to court proceedings and makes it easier for the parties to participate without having to travel, which helps to reduce court costs and speed up the process.
Oral Judgments, Faster Decisions
One of the most striking aspects of the reform is the possibility of delivering judgments orally. This option could be particularly important in simpler disputes where the judge considers that they already have all the elements necessary to make a decision. The oral judgment is written up at a later date, which allows for a faster resolution of the dispute. If the parties do not appeal the decision, the judgment becomes definitive.
Conclusion: Faster And More Flexible Fast-Track Proceedings
The new norms on fast-track proceedings are in line with the general objectives of the reform of the LEC, with a clear focus on efficiency and simplification of proceedings. The possibility of avoiding unnecessary hearings, the preliminary written proceedings, the promotion of alternative means of dispute resolution and the use of available technology in hearings are important steps towards a more agile, flexible and accessible justice system for everyone.
However, as with any legislative reform, it will depend on how the new regulations are implemented in practice and whether they achieve the objective of a faster and better dispute resolution before the courts. There is no doubt that this reform has the potential to significantly improve access to justice and reduce the workload of the courts, which will benefit all parties involved.