Today has been contacted the lawyer who leads the case of the Cooperativa de Taxis (CT) of Zaragoza. He has shown his surprise at the decision of the courts to the refusal of the Coopertiva to admit us as partners.
try to explain the two aspects of fault.
1 º. A section that is completely favorable to us and that we recognize the standing to challenge the rejection of the court to admit as cooperative partners.
I believe is the most important court ruling since it removes the reason to the arguments of the CT at the hearing argued that the lack of legitimacy of the actors to go to court to defend their interests.
This was the central issue of demand and gives us the reason.
try to explain the two aspects of fault.
1 º. A section that is completely favorable to us and that we recognize the standing to challenge the rejection of the court to admit as cooperative partners.
I believe is the most important court ruling since it removes the reason to the arguments of the CT at the hearing argued that the lack of legitimacy of the actors to go to court to defend their interests.
This was the central issue of demand and gives us the reason.
2 º. In this section of the ruling, the judge declares that the refusal of the CT is legally sound but, in my humble opinion, its reasoning clearly leaves us defenseless and supported as true the testimony of another witness Gayán and we had slandered the CT and that was the reason for the refusal to admit us as partners.
The truth is that even when the view is not we had reported the merits of the refusal and therefore, on our part, no evidence was submitted contrary to declardo by witnesses. The trial, for that matter, does not comply with the principle of contradiction and therefore produces helplessness of the plaintiff.
In summary. The judge rejected the arguments of Cooperative and debunks its claim of lack of confidence on our part. But on the other side accepts as true the testimony of witnesses as the reason for the refusal to admit when at no time alludes to these reasons for refusing the entry and therefore it was never possible to contradict them.
not want to go beyond what is said because the appeal underway. Yes
want to encourage everyone in the sense that the first battle is won even though, paradoxically, seem a defeat.
Those who seem to have gained know this. I'll keep you informed
.
The truth is that even when the view is not we had reported the merits of the refusal and therefore, on our part, no evidence was submitted contrary to declardo by witnesses. The trial, for that matter, does not comply with the principle of contradiction and therefore produces helplessness of the plaintiff.
In summary. The judge rejected the arguments of Cooperative and debunks its claim of lack of confidence on our part. But on the other side accepts as true the testimony of witnesses as the reason for the refusal to admit when at no time alludes to these reasons for refusing the entry and therefore it was never possible to contradict them.
not want to go beyond what is said because the appeal underway. Yes
want to encourage everyone in the sense that the first battle is won even though, paradoxically, seem a defeat.
Those who seem to have gained know this. I'll keep you informed
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment