The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has condemned the Community of Madrid, through a recent ruling, to bear the expenses for the work generated in the search for a body of a crime in a landfill, without prejudice to the fact that then you can request the Court to include it in the costs, although without guarantee that it will be reimbursed. The Court of El Alto considered that it is the Administration's obligation to guarantee the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice.
The resolved case has its origin in an invoice worth 1,4 million euros presented by a company to the Community of Madrid for the costs of searching for a body, remains and effects of the crime in a landfill, ordered by a Court of Instruction of Majadahonda.
The Community of Madrid returned the invoice presented by the company so that it could be sent to the court that had ordered the search so that it could be included in the appraisal of costs that was carried out, so that whoever was convicted at the time would take charge. .
The company appealed the administrative resolution before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, which in a ruling upheld its appeal and agreed that the regional Administration had to pay the costs of the search at the landfill as it involved expenses necessary for the operation, commissioning progress and achievement of the objectives of the Administration of Justice.
Cooperation with Justice
The Supreme Court now dismisses the appeal filed by the Community of Madrid against the judgment appealed against and resolves that said costs correspond to the competent Administration.
Otherwise, those who had complied with their obligation to collaborate with the judges or courts would be caused “serious damage consisting of non-payment or an indeterminate delay in the payment of costs that they have no legal obligation to bear, all the more regardless of the obligation of the competent Administration to put all the means of communication that have been able to guarantee the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice, "underlines the court.
And if that is so, indicates the Chamber, "there is none so that when said collaboration entails a cost, it is deferred a moment after the provision of said collaboration or, even, what reason is exposed to the eventuality of that there is finally no conviction, that costs are not awarded or that the convicted person is insolvent”.
The Chamber explains that any other interpretation, such as the one proposed by the Community of Madrid, "leads to undesirable consequences and contrary to the constitutional mandate of compulsory collaboration with judges and courts in the course of the express process contained in article 118 of the Constitution, mandate collected as in article 17 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary”. Otherwise, the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice would be affected.
costas
On the other hand, the Chamber specified that the foregoing does not prevent such expenses from being included in the costs of the criminal proceedings, but, in any case, it will be the sentencing body that determines whether certain expenses are to be considered costs in the specific issue under discussion.
It concludes that, at the end of the day, the Administration may approach the sentencing judicial body requesting that the amounts paid at that time be compensated and the inclusion or not of such expenses in the costs must be up to the judicial decision, depending on the specific circumstances. of the case.
