Chile, Supreme Court of Justice, 7 July 2022, No. 18965-2021
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
In an executive process, the Defendant requested a declaration of abandonment of the process by the Plaintiff because there had been no procedural action on his part in 6 months, the time required by law to declare abandonment.
The Plaintiff justified its inaction on the mobility restriction measures issued during the pandemic since this made it impossible for him to execute procedural actions.
The Court indicated that the institution of procedural abandonment is a sanction for the legal inactivity of the parties. It pointed out that this was not the case since the impossibility of performing procedural actions because of the measures dictated by the government during the pandemic was not a fact attributable to the parties of the process.
Facts of the case
In an executive proceeding, the Defendant requested the declaration of abandonment of the proceeding by the Plaintiff because there had been no procedural action by him in 6 months, the time required by law to declare abandonment.
The first instance judge rejected the request, and the second instance judge revoked that decision. Due to the above, the Plaintiff filed an appeal because he considered that he was in a state of defenselessness due to the sanitary measures issued in the place where he resided, that were issued during the state of emergency, since these measures made it difficult for him to move to make notifications. In addition, he pointed out that during four of those six months, the judicial authorities were not carrying out notifications.
In this regard, the Plaintiff considered that he was in a material impossibility of performing procedures and not in a passivity imputable to him.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Private individual
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court considered that the Plaintiff did not make the notifications as a consequence of the measures taken due to the pandemic.
The Court said it was necessary to provide the judicial procedures the flexibility required to comply, in such exceptional circumstances, with their higher purpose, which was to grant access to effective judicial protection. Otherwise, it could cause defenselessness to some parties or intervening parties.
The Court indicated that in a territory with restrictions on the movement of people and high levels of health risk, it was impossible to carry out a judicial proceeding physically.
The Court stated that by declaring the abandonment of the proceeding, the reviewed decision differed from the necessary hypothesis to declare the abandonment of the proceeding, as an institution designed to sanction the negligent litigant, which did not occur in this case because the Plaintiff was unable to carry out his judicial proceedings due to the pandemic. Therefore, the Court considered that the judge of the second instance had incurred errors of law and accepted the Plaintiff's petition.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court indicated that the institution of procedural abandonment is a sanction for the legal inactivity of the parties. It pointed out that this was not the case since the impossibility of performing procedural actions because of the measures dictated by the government during the pandemic was not a fact attributable to the parties of the process.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Right to access to justice, to a fair trial and to jury trial
- Right to due process
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Right to defense, Art. 19, Chilean Constitution
- Right to due process, Art. 19, Chilean Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
- Health v. access to justice
- Health v. right to due process
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court implicitly applied the principle of due process to determine whether the Court of Appeals' decision had respected the Plaintiff's procedural rights.
