Image map

Auto no. 142/2008 de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

La Sala entiende que, en efecto, el Juzgador a quo yerra en su interpretación. Que el artículo 65 de la LEC, referente a la resolución de la declinatoria, guarde silencio sobre la condena en costas no significa que en este incidente no exista condena en costas, sino que no existen normas especiales para la misma. Es evidente que quien interpone una demanda de forma indebida, acudiendo a un juez incompetente, como era sin duda el Juzgado a quo para conocer de una demanda de impugnación de acuerdos sociales de una sociedad anónima, y ante la errónea admisión de la demanda por parte del Juzgado, obliga al demandado a formular declinatoria para hacer ver esa incompetencia, genera, al estimarse en su integridad y sin concurrencia alguna de dudas fácticas o jurídicas, la obligación del actor de pagar las costas causadas.

The Court believes that the lower Court did indeed err in its interpretation. The fact that Article 65 of the Civil Procedure Act, regarding the resolution of motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, says nothing of the awarding of costs does not mean that costs are not awarded in this motion, but rather that there are no special rules for the awarding of costs. The lower court undoubtedly lacked jurisdiction to hear a complaint against a corporation’s corporate resolutions. Because the Court mistakenly granted leave to proceed and allowed the claim in its entirety without any factual or legal reservations, the defendant was forced to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in order to demonstrate such lack of jurisdiction. It is clear that when a claim is brought improperly by filing the complaint with a court lacking jurisdiction, as in the case at hand, the plaintiff is required to pay the costs incurred.