The “Catalan grievance” is the one petitioned for purposes other than those that could be gotten based on what is legitimately anticipated of the individual bringing the criminal activity as the harmed or insulted party in a wrongdoing, typically with financial outcomes. These reasons can be extremely assorted: From incapacitating a common procedure because of “criminal prejudiciality”, in which the offended party is an offended party in the first, to utilizing the criminal procedure to dishonor the respondent in another criminal procedure that as of now exists or is relied upon to start in which he is a complainant or witness or, at last, determined to extort the litigant so he consents to pay an amount of cash after the withdrawal of the grumbling (which would mean the finish of the procedural trial endured by the treacherously sued respondent).
All of this, tragically, happens all around frequently. Again and again. What’s more, it is made conceivable by the simple passage into an inspecting judge’s court of a grumbling that is developed – once in a while not even that – with the article of realities “with a regular appearance”, without the need to demonstrate them. The offended party – and the marking attorney and specialist – know very well that large numbers of the primer procedures started for this kind of grumbling take always until they are at last excused (here and there following quite a long while), with the colossal moral and monetary harm endured by the people who have wound up in the situation of being researched on the grounds that the appointed authority has conceded the protest for preparing and has consented to lead procedures which he “legitimizes” in light of the fact that, in the event that he doesn’t consent to them, “the Court will disavow the request for unacceptability or excusal” (despite the fact that it is known in advance that they won’t contribute anything to the explanation of current realities). Furthermore, when the case is shut, the Stockholm condition makes the litigant appreciative for it eventually (in spite of the fact that he doesn’t exactly get what it implies that the excusal is depicted as “temporary”). Yet, the excused litigant is likewise crushed in light of the fact that these activities “come for nothing” for the people who have utilized the organization of equity and the legal executive itself in a harmful, misleading and curved way for purposes other than those for which the activity of the criminal activity is directed, something that ought to be rebuffed in a commendable way with the inconvenience of compensatory costs, fines for wildness or malevolence or the derivation of ex officio declaration to indict the offended party for a wrongdoing against the organization of equity.
It is said that the beginning of the name “Catalan claim”, with which all proceduralists are recognizable, has its starting point in a claim among Catalan and Genoese vendors, in which the last requested that the previous satisfy an agreement and the last reacted by documenting a claim against the previous fully intent on getting away from common activity, which they really prevailed with regards to doing. The facts really confirm that, these days, with the assurances of the framework, a conviction without evidence isn’t possible, yet the punishment isn’t just a speculative conviction; the “seat” punishment is endured during the years wherein, because of the absence of a sufficient channel, a guiltless resident shows up as a litigant, sorry, as an individual being scrutinized.
Text: Santiago Milans de Bosch