May 18, 2023May 18, 2023 Administrator
TheJudgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, Civil and Criminal Chamber, First Section, of December 15, 2022, appeal no. 9/2022 (speaker Miguel Pascua Liaño), dismisses the request for annulment of an arbitral award in collegiate arbitration, with the following considerations, conveniently ordered:
“(…)On the arbitration dispute. The arbitration dispute dealt with the interpretation of a contractual clause included in the first stipulation of the contract for the exchange of land and urban use in exchange for elements to be built and an amount of money entered into between the parties on October 19, 2004, according to which 'The effectiveness of this contract is conditional on the fact that the Vera General Urban Planning Plan, currently in the drafting phase, classifies -in the present municipal legislature- as developable land that corresponding to the farms described in statement I of this document' . Insofar as the Vera General Urban Planning Plan was finally not approved within the term or on the terms provided by the parties, the acquirer urged the arbitration provided for in the eighth stipulation of the contract in order to request that it be declared the supervening ineffectiveness of the contract as a consequence of "the lack of fulfillment of the constitutive event of the condition", with the consequent impossibility of compliance, which would entail the return of the amounts advanced by way of price and their interests from the celebration of an act of conciliation. The assignors opposed the claim and counterclaimed requesting compensation for damages for non-compliance by the acquiring company and plaintiff therein, of its obligation to immediately start the urbanization works. The arbitral award partially upheld the claim, declaring the termination of the contract due to supervening inefficiency "since the classification of developable land was not reached with respect to the land that was the subject of the contract", ordering the defendants to return the amount received as "payment on account of the benefits of the exchange', with the interest accrued from the award (not from the conciliation act), and dismissed the counterclaim, without ordering costs”.
“(…)Regarding the filing of the claim for annulment. The representation of Messrs. Pablo and Milagrosa file a claim for annulment of the award, in which they start from the following premises: a) That at the time of the execution of the contract (October 19, 2004) the lands object of assignment were, although rustic, immediately developable, the acquirer having assumed the contractual obligation to start urbanization works from the outset, without prejudice to the fact that the construction phase is delayed until the corresponding building permits are obtained; b) That the clause transcribed above establishes a condition of a resolving and not a suspensive nature. c) That the approval of the Vera Urban Plan, classifying the land as undevelopable, led to the termination of the contract, and that, from that moment on, the arbitral tribunal lost its "jurisdictional competence", since the arbitration submission clause would have continued the same fate as the contract in which it was included”.
“(…)On the interpretation of the contract carried out by the award. Instead, the award was based on the premise that the land covered by the contract was not developable at the time the contract was signed, but could become so if the Plan in which it was so provided had been approved. However, it qualified the condition as resolutive, since the contract had binding effects from the outset, as demonstrated by the fact that the assignors represented the acquirers for the procedures that were necessary in order to obtain the qualification of the land as developable, and the acquirer delivered an amount of money as advance payment of the price. The arrival of the period foreseen for the fulfillment of the condition led to the termination of the contract, in accordance with the provisions of article 1117 CC. The plaintiffs are scandalized by the first premise established by the award (the undevelopable nature of the land), for which they invoke the statements made in the heading 'Urban Planning Situation' of the contract, according to which 'In relation to the indicated land, there is no subject to a special protection regime that makes it incompatible with its urban transformation (...)'. It is quite evident that such an absurd conclusion cannot be supported by this statement, such as that rustic land is considered no longer buildable for certain uses, but materially developable, as a de facto conversion into urban land: the non-existence of a regime special only means that there are no drawbacks for an 'urban transformation' through ordinary planning, that is, for the land to be classified as developable in the new plan. In fact, in the following paragraph of that epigraph, it is stated that it is the 'common objective of those involved in this document that it contemplates the land of the farms described in the second statement as developable land', which unequivocally entails the causalization of a motive, which is given the form of a condition. It is clear that if this was conceived as a 'common objective' of both parties, it is because the ceding party was also aware that at that time it had not been achieved, but was pending approval of the plan. Hence the condition established in the first stipulation, according to which 'the effectiveness of this contract is conditioned to the fact that the General Urban Planning Plan, currently in the drafting phase, classifies -in this municipal legislature- as developable land that corresponding to the farms described'. Also for this reason, in clause 3.1 it is stated that 'the maintenance of the obligatory ties derived from this contract (...) will require that, in the remaining time of this legislature, the Plan be definitively approved (...) making it possible to request and obtain of municipal building licences'. There is no evidence that failure to achieve that 'common objective' or causal reason is attributable to the acquirer, as it is the exclusive decision of the municipal corporation, not subject to commitments of any kind. Consequently, the thesis of the plaintiffs here is irrational, as they understand that the acquirer should have started the urbanization works immediately (before the classification of the land as developable): it would be a null obligation as it is a provision that is legally impossible original (arts. 1271.III and 1272 CC), and therefore said clause cannot be interpreted in such a way that it leads to its nullity (art. 1284 CC). It is also not understood what damage the acquirer would have caused to the assignors due to the fact that it did not (illegally) start the urbanization works when they would not have reported any profit, since no urban use derived from the land was obtained in the new plan. assigned (use that, by the way, formed part of the object that the assignors transmitted to the acquirers, as expressly stated in clause 2.1 of the contract). The purpose for the assignors was not, or could not be, the illegal construction of useless roads or other sterile connection works, but rather the receipt of specific construction units that could not have been obtained in any way without the foreseen but not certain modification of the Plan. Perhaps the explanation lies in what is stated on page 60 of the claim (which is actually page 14, since the numbering begins at page 46): that if the acquirer had started the works (in violation of urban regulations)' perhaps the plan would not have changed the rustic developable classification that the farms already enjoyed according to the NNSS', that is, that in the face of a fait accompli, perhaps the City Council would have granted the classification of developable land, a consideration that of course the award would not have due attend. The damage derived for the present actors, therefore, has not been caused by any breach of the acquirer, but by the non-approval of the Urban Plan in the terms that both parties expected, which cannot give rise to any compensation, but only to the supervening ineffectiveness of the contract, with the restorative consequences that are fully established in the operative part of the award. In no way is everything that has been said incompatible with the distinction that seems to be made in the contract between the urbanization phase and the construction phase, and to indicate as the delivery date of the built properties object of the exchange that of four years from the obtaining (obviously uncertain, due to the pending approval of the Plan in the terms initially provided) of the building permit; nor with the granting of authorizations to the acquirer so that it could "manage all the appropriate procedures so that the properties subject to assignment can be classified as developable land" (heading of the AUTHORIZATION document that accompanied the contract), This is yet another sign that the assignors were not unaware that the land assigned was not 'yet' developable. The interpretation of the contract that the arbitral tribunal has carried out is, therefore, not at all irrational or 'prevaricating' (as the technical representation of the plaintiffs goes so far as to say in their highly disoriented statement of claim), but rather would be It is surprising an interpretation like the one supported by the plaintiffs here.”
“(…)On the supervening loss of competence to hear the matter by the Court, when the contract is terminated. The plaintiffs also use as grounds for nullity that when the contract was definitively terminated as a result of the approval of the new Vera urban plan in which the ceded land was classified as undevelopable, this also led to the ineffectiveness of the arbitration clause. , so that the disputed issue would have to be ventilated before the civil jurisdiction. The argument is untenable. The art. 22.1 of the Arbitration Law establishes that '(...) The arbitration agreement that forms part of a contract will be considered as an independent agreement from the other stipulations thereof. The decision of the arbitrators that declares the nullity of the contract will not entail by itself the nullity of the arbitration agreement. If this is the case with the most serious causes of ineffectiveness (nullity), it cannot be otherwise with the resolution due to supervening impossibility or due to compliance with a condition, which are nothing more than incidents in the development of the life of the contract. The parties signed a commitment to submit to arbitration for 'all disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or compliance with this annex -sic -'. There was a dispute about how the contract was to be interpreted (character and effectiveness of the condition, existence or not of an immediate obligation to develop, etc.), and whether there was a breach by any of the parties, and it was submitted to arbitration. The resolution of the obligations as a consequence of the fulfillment of the resolutive condition (end of the 'municipal legislature' without the final approval of the plan that classified the land as developable farms) caused a sudden inefficiency (art. 1117 CC) whose consequences, in In view of said submission clause, they could only be decided by arbitrators. This is how the plaintiffs understood it, by the way, by not initially formulating this exception to the existence of an arbitration agreement that covered the dispute, and on the contrary, retaliating by requesting that the arbitrators establish consequences other than those sought by the claimant. as a consequence of the termination of the contract.
“(…) The claim, then, must be dismissed in its entirety. It is inconsistent and borders on reckless. The order of the plaintiff to pay the costs falls by its weight.
Leave a commentCancel reply
When an individual has an eligibility of Loss of Jurisdiction, there is no eligibility, i.e. the individual should be debriefed and no access provided until an eligibility that supports access is entered by a CAF. Loss of Jurisdiction is usually posted when an individual has no affiliation with an Industry Facility.How do you fix loss of jurisdiction? ›
The most common way to “resolve” a loss of jurisdiction is to obtain new sponsorship and for the security manager or facility security officer to submit a Customer Service Request (CSR) in DISS for a new action to request adjudication of a person's security clearance eligibility.How do you maintain a secret clearance? ›
A government security clearance requires a periodic reinvestigation every 15 years for a “confidential” clearance, every 10 years for “secret,” and every 5 years for “top secret.” When a clearance is inactivated (because of switching jobs or leaving the military), it can be fairly easy to reinstate within the first 24 ...What is meant by the term adverse information and who would you report this to? ›
Adverse information consists of any information that negatively reflects on the integrity or character of a cleared employee, that suggests that his or her ability to safeguard classified information may be impaired, or that his or her access to classified information clearly may not be in the interest of national ...What happens if your clearance is denied? ›
In many instances, no security clearance = no job. While you may be the most qualified candidate for a position, you will not get the job if you can't get the clearance that goes with it.What can cause you to lose your clearance? ›
- Fail to self report foreign travel. ...
- Make multiple security violations. ...
- Make close and continuing relationships with foreign nationals – and don't report them. ...
- Start accruing debt – and fail to address it. ...
- Get a hidden side hustle.
"Loss of Jurisdiction": Indicates that an individual has separated or changed employment status prior to the adjudication of his/her security investigation.How long does adjudication take for secret clearance? ›
How long does the security clearance process take? The security clearance process takes an average of three to four months to complete but can take up to a full year to complete depending on your background.What is an LOJ? ›
Loj, or sheep fat (caul fat, lace fat) is a smoked thin membrane which surrounds internal organs of the sheep including the fat around kidneys and loins.Is it hard to get a secret clearance? ›
But assuming you don't have go down that path, the process to getting a Secret clearance is fairly straightforward. It just isn't always that fast. Timelines have changed over the years, but you'll want to have some back-up work in the hopper while you wait for either an interim Secret clearance or the final decision.
You are not a U.S. citizen. You were dishonorably discharged from the military. You are currently involved in illegal drug use. You have been judged as mentally incompetent or mentally incapacitated by a mental health professional.What do they check for secret clearance? ›
Credit and criminal history checks will be conducted on all applicants. For a Top Secret security clearance, the background investigation includes additional record checks which can verify citizenship for the applicant and family members, verification of birth, education, employment history, and military history.Who is responsible to report all adverse events? ›
Who is responsible for reporting serious adverse events (SAEs)? Manufacturers are under mandatory requirements to report serious adverse events related to their products to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Reporting of a serious adverse event is voluntary for healthcare professionals, consumers, and patients.Who can report an adverse event? ›
Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.Who can report serious adverse event? ›
The investigator shall be obliged to forthwith notify the sponsor of the clinical investigation of any Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events arising from the testing of the medical device.How many people get denied Top Secret clearance? ›
Just under 10% of applicants are denied by the National Security Agency. Just under 7% are denied by the CIA and just over 7% are rejected by the National Reconnaissance Office. Every candidate is evaluated carefully during the security clearance application process.Can you get a clearance after being denied? ›
Most government agencies allow an individual who has been denied a clearance or had their clearance revoked to reapply for a security clearance after 12 months from the date of the final decision. Some agencies require a wait of 24 months and others of 36 months. The most common length of time is 12 months.How many secret clearances get denied? ›
The denial rate for interim clearances is around 20 to 30% but is only 1% for full security clearances. So if you receive a denial, be patient; odds are you'll be a security clearance holder working to protect our national security soon.What disqualifies you from a public trust clearance? ›
Lying about your employment history, education, drug use, or other details may not cause issues for your public trust, but they will absolutely result in a clearance denial.Can you lose government clearance? ›
The government can deny or revoke your clearance because of noncompliance with security regulations that raises doubt about your trustworthiness, willingness, and ability to safeguard classified information.
State court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment and the federal court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.What cases fall under jurisdiction? ›
Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving: the United States government, the Constitution or federal laws, or. controversies between states or between the U.S. government and foreign governments.
In federal court, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is considered a favored defense and may be raised at any point in the litigation process, even if the parties had previously argued that subject-matter jurisdiction existed.How long does Eqip take to clear? ›
90 days: Once the applicant has completed the PSQ, it must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate agency within 90 days or the Investigation Request is terminated. What are some other important e-Qip timelines?How far back does top secret clearance go? ›
The clearance process for Secret level access uses an investigation called the National Agency Check with Law and Credit that goes back five years, while the clearance process for Top Secret uses a Single Scope Background Investigation that goes back ten years.How many days is adjudication? ›
Adjudication is speedy: an adjudicator is required to decide matters referred to them within 28 days. The automatic right to refer disputes to an adjudicator was introduced in The Construction Act 1996.What does RSI mean for a security clearance? ›
Reimbursable Suitability Investigation (RSI)What is the adjudication of a security clearance? ›
Adjudication is the final, and in many cases shortest aspect of the security clearance process. Adjudication is the decision the sponsoring federal agency makes about granting clearance eligibility. The adjudicator's decision is based on information gathered and verified in the course of the background investigation.Do you need good credit for a secret clearance? ›
There is no specific credit score needed for security clearance. “It's one component,” said Edmunds, whose law firm has been handling security clearance cases for more than three decades and has offices in six cities across the country.What is level 5 Top Secret clearance? ›
Tier 5 – Top Secret Security Clearance
As the highest level of security clearance, applicants can expect a more rigorous examination. If approved, this clearance gives cleared personnel access to information or material that could cause disastrous damage to national security. Tier 5 is the only tier in this category.
How many types or levels of security clearance are there? There are three levels of security clearance: confidential, secret, and top secret.What disqualifies you from SF 86? ›
A history of drug addiction, drug involvement or alcoholism can provide a barrier to receiving security clearance. Past issues with drugs or alcohol may disqualify you from receiving security clearance. Current, ongoing use of an illegal drug will automatically disqualify you.Can you lose your clearance if you fail a polygraph? ›
So, by “failing” a polygraph or producing “inconclusive results” you might not get the job or the clearance you're applying for – but you also won't lose any clearance you already have or jeopardize your future prospects of obtaining clearances that don't require a polygraph.What are the 5 levels of security clearance? ›
- Controlled Unclassified.
- Public Trust Position.
- Top Secret.
The policy is clear that clearance holders will not be asked to share information like passwords. If you keep your accounts appropriately protected, you help keep your personal identity – and clearance eligibility – safe.Does a secret clearance check your bank account? ›
Absent serious counter-intelligence or criminal indicators that result in the case being referred for a different type of investigation, the government doesn't peek into your bank accounts or review your credit card transactions in the normal course of a background investigation.Do security clearances check Internet history? ›
Although security clearance background checks can be intensely thorough, the government can't view your emails, Internet browsing history, hard drive data, and other virtual assets without a subpoena or warrant.What is an unexpected adverse event? ›
Unexpected adverse event or suspected adverse reaction refers to an event or reaction that is not listed in the investigator's brochure or is not listed at the specificity or severity that has been observed; or, if an investigator's brochure is not required or available, is not consistent with the risk information ...What is required for adverse event? ›
- Death. ...
- Life-threatening. ...
- Hospitalization (initial or prolonged) ...
- Disability or Permanent Damage. ...
- Congenital Anomaly/Birth Defect. ...
- Required Intervention to Prevent Permanent Impairment or Damage (Devices) ...
- Other Serious (Important Medical Events)
A reportable event is an adverse event or other incident that has the potential to be classified by the IRB as an unanticipated problem posing risks to participants or others.
There are only four requirements for a valid adverse drug reaction report: patient identifier, medicine, reaction, reporter details.What are the four elements when reporting adverse events? ›
The minimum dataset required to consider information as a reportable AE is indeed minimal, namely (1) an identifiable patient, (2) an identifiable reporter, (3) product exposure, and (4) an event.What are the four elements required for a valid adverse event report? ›
For a report to be valid, only four items of information are required: an identifiable patient, a reaction, a suspected medicinal product and an identifiable reporter.Who should disclose an adverse event to the patient? ›
Who—The attending physician should lead the discussion. If the physician cannot be present, it is preferable to have a senior member of the health care team lead the discussion. The circumstances of the adverse event often will dictate what other members of the health care team also must be present.What makes an adverse event serious? ›
An adverse event or suspected adverse reaction is considered “serious” if, in the view of either the investigator or sponsor, it results in any of the following outcomes: Death. A life-threatening adverse event. Inpatient hospitalization, or prolonged of existing hospitalization.When should serious adverse events be reported? ›
Unanticipated problems that are serious adverse events should be reported to the IRB within 1 week of the investigator becoming aware of the event. Any other unanticipated problem should be reported to the IRB within 2 weeks of the investigator becoming aware of the problem.What does lack of jurisdiction mean? ›
Lack of Jurisdiction: When a court does not have the power to act in a certain way or provide certain types of help, it is called lack of jurisdiction. This can happen when the court does not have authority over a person or the subject matter of a lawsuit, or when it cannot act until certain requirements are met.What does lack of personal jurisdiction mean? ›
Basically, it means that the court will be unable to control any of the proposed defendants that you are trying to bring into your lawsuit. That is why most lawyers rely on someone known as a “process server” in order to deliver the lawsuit papers.What does fall under the jurisdiction mean? ›
a matter that falls within the court's jurisdiction. : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate. : the power or right to exercise authority : control. 3. : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised.What is demand for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction? ›
(a) For Lack of Jurisdiction.
An action against any defendant who has not been served or over whom the court has not otherwise acquired jurisdiction is subject to dismissal as to that defendant at the expiration of one year from the last issuance of original process directed to that defendant.
A: A federal indictment is rarely so defective as to not charge an offense, but when this does happen, the conviction is ripe for a section 2255 challenge. This is a classic example of lack of jurisdiction; if the indictment never charged an offense, there was never a crime for the court to adjudicate.Can a plaintiff argue lack of personal jurisdiction? ›
So if the plaintiff sues a defendant, that defendant can object to the suit by arguing that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.What does it mean to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant? ›
Personal jurisdiction or in personam jurisdiction refers to a court's power over a person (or entity) who is a party to, or involved in, a case or controversy before the court, including its power to render judgments affecting that person's rights. 1. Personal Jurisdiction, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.Is lack of jurisdiction an affirmative defense? ›
Most affirmative defenses must be pleaded in a timely manner by a defendant in order for the court to consider them, or else they are considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert them. The classic unwaivable affirmative defense is lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.What is an example of failure to state a claim? ›
One example of a failure to state a claim is when one party files a personal injury claim based on negligence. Negligence requires that the defendant breached their duty of care to the plaintiff.What determines the jurisdiction of a case? ›
State court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment and the federal court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.What types of cases fall under original jurisdiction? ›
Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers.How does a court lose subject-matter jurisdiction? ›
Under California jurisdiction law, a court loses subject matter jurisdiction upon dismissing a criminal case in its entirety, and these rules prevent a court from later vacating such a dismissal, even when the vacation was sought by stipulation of the parties.Is lack of standing a jurisdictional issue? ›
Standing Is a Jurisdictional Requirement—Unless the Government Wants the Merits Decided. This article originally appeared in the Yale Journal on Regulation.What are the most common reasons for rejection or dismissal of a criminal case? ›
- No probable cause. ...
- Illegal search. ...
- Lack of evidence. ...
- Lost evidence. ...
- Missing witnesses. ...
- Failing to state Miranda Rights.