Although the Chamber "considers the assessment

nijhumnishita03

Insufficient performance of only one of the sellers when it comes to requesting a resolution for non-compliance to be correct", it does not agree with the solution given by the AP of Valencia because, in view of the situation of confrontation between the couple (sellers), "the dismissal of the claim creates a situation of dead end or blockade for the plaintiff seller." However, “the refusal to file a lawsuit by the person who should do so jointly with another, justified because no one can be forced to litigate, cannot however deprive of judicial protection to anyone who intends to request the courts to recognize their legitimate interests.” ", warns the First Chamber.

Faced with such a scenario, the High Court considers it necessary to find a solution to “reconcile both interests.” Now, under this intention, it admits that, whoever opposes jointly filing the claim when their presence in the process is necessary in response to the legal relationship discussed, " must be brought to the process as a defendant in order Phone Number Data to have the relationship well established." procedural”, he concludes. In short, as we anticipated, given the lack of necessary passive consortium litigation, the First Chamber orders that such circumstance be corrected in the terms provided in art . 420.3 of the Civil Procedure Law , with the retroaction of the proceedings to the act of the prior hearing of the ordinary trial , so that by the father-plaintiff, within the period granted by the Court of First Instance, which may not be less than ten days, the claim is directed against the litisconsorte.



Now, the magistrate emphasizes in the ruling that the permits “are contemplated for the benefit of the minor and to provide for the care they need.” The nonexistence of a parent, according to the resolution, “cannot justify a smaller number of weeks as a right to recognize , since it would be the same as stating that a minor with a single parent requires a smaller number of weeks of care and attention than a minor born with two parents, a thesis that does not support the test of reasonableness, concurrently with the discrimination that is evident.” Government Delegation in Galicia. (Photo: Google) Discriminatory treatment The judge considers that indirect discrimination is “evident”, as he highlights that the number of single-parent families made up of women is “significantly greater than those made up of men”.