In recent weeks the Supreme Court has issued several rulings (ECLI:ES:TS:2024:4906, ECLI:ES:TS:2024:4905, ECLI:ES:TS:2024:4904) in which, accepting the so-called doctrine Saquetti expands the object of the cassation appeal so that, in addition to the functions of unifying doctrine indicated by the LRJCA, it assumes a second instance function for the review of serious sanctions.
The Saquetti doctrine is based on the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2020, Saquetti vs. Spain, and establishes that the Spanish appeal system requires a double judicial instance for the review of especially serious sanctions, Thus, there had only been one instance in relation to the sanction imposed as required by the standards for the protection of fundamental rights. under the provisions of art. 2 of Protocol No. 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In relation to the Saquetti doctrine, the Supreme Court itself had previously ruled (ECLI:ES:TS:2021:4550, ECLI:ES:TS:2021:4883) establishing that the existing appeal system guaranteed its compliance and the Constitutional Court , who indicated that the right guaranteed by the aforementioned CDEH precept “is also satisfied with a decision of inadmissibility (of the appeal), for formal or material reasons, provided that it is motivated and is based on the existence of a legal cause that is reasonably applied” (STC 10/2022, of February 7, STC 71/2022, of June 13).
However, and despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to judge the legality of lower court rulings relating to sanctions in an appeal, the Court has issued several rulings in which it does proceed to execute the Saquetti doctrine, annulling previously confirmed sanctions. by the lower court.
The guarantee of reexamination in a second instance does not constitute an end in itself, but its purpose is to give effect to the right of the sanctioned person, who has had the revocation of the sanction imposed by the Administration rejected, to have the opportunity to decision be examined by a higher court.
The Supreme Court points out that, in order for the appeal to be admitted in this type of cases The controversy can no longer focus on whether the re-examination is appropriate but rather on providing the sanctioned person whose appeal has been rejected in the instance, the possibility of being able to submit to review the violations of the ordinance that he considers. that have been neglected in the first ruling of the lower court. Therefore, the right to re-examination of Article 2 of the Protocol does not constitute an end in itself but rather a means through which questions can be raised regarding possible infractions to which the sanctioned person believes himself entitled.
Therefore, with regard to the documents preparing appeals, the relevant thing is not so much to invoke the Saquetti doctrine as to highlight the legal violations of the ruling in its name.
However, this does not mean that questions of mere fact can be raised in the appeal, that is, a review of the assessment of the evidence carried out by the Court of first instance, which is, in principle, prohibited in the appeal. .
On the other hand, and in relation to the objective cassation interest for the formation of jurisprudence that constitutes the unavoidable presupposition for the admission of a cassation appeal, the Supreme Court concludes that, in this type of appeal, no doctrine will be formed, since the purpose of the appeal is the review of the guilt of the sanctioned person.
It would therefore be an exception to the requirements of the LRJCA regarding appeals of cassation covered by Article 2 of the Protocol, which requires the possibility of a re-examination of the substantive issues through appeals, excluding questions of mere fact that have been raised by the sanctioned person in the instance or taken into consideration by the Court a quo.
The Saquetti doctrine implies, therefore, not that there is an unavoidable requirement that the appeal be admitted, but rather the guarantee that must be granted to the sanctioned party that the challenge to the sanction imposed by the Administration and confirmed in the instance can be examined. by the Supreme Court and that must always be made possible when a substantive infringement is invoked.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court establishes that In case the inadmissibility of this type of resources must be carried out by means of a reasoned order, not a ruling..
Therefore, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court interprets that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR requires the right to re-examination as a manifestation of the right to a trial with all guarantees, of someone who has been declared guilty of an infraction of a criminal nature, and that it must be linked the objective cassation interest in your favor.
In short, when sentences have been issued in a single instance confirming sanctioning resolutions, the affected fundamental right requires an interpretation in favor of the objective cassational interest for the purposes of admitting the appeal, as long as the purpose of the re-examination is justified in a reasoned violation of the rules and jurisprudence applicable to the case and that have been violated in that lower court ruling.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court specifies that in this type of case it is not possible to extend the scope of prosecution to any other aspect other than the sanctioning resolution, that is, the extension of the scope of the appeal by the Saquetti doctrine cannot imply the review of the liquidations for the same reasons invoked for the infringement since this would go beyond the motive and reason for the admission of the appeal, which is to comply with the guarantee of art. 2 of Protocol No. 7 of the ECHR.
#Supreme #Court #accepts #Saquetti #doctrine #ECtHR
