Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.
Sign in

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

Bill would make losing parties pay court costs only if reckless

Committee step 4 of 7 · Unfinished

It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 14 September 2017. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Socialista.

Official title: Private member's bill to reform Law 1/2000, of January 7, on Civil Procedure and Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction, on the matter of costs of the process.

Follow this law

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000128· updated 11 Nov

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

  1. The bill would change the Civil Procedure Law so that first instance court costs are imposed on the losing party only if the court finds, and explains, that the party litigated recklessly. Costs would never be imposed if the case raised serious doubts of fact or law.
  2. If each party partly wins, each would pay its own costs and half the common ones, unless there was recklessness. When a case directly affects a consumer and the consumer wins, costs would go to the losing party in any instance.
  3. The bill would also adjust the rules on accepting the claim, withdrawing the claim, and appeals to the new recklessness standard.
  4. It would amend Article 139 of the Administrative Jurisdiction Law to apply the same standard in cases against public authorities, and would exclude the court fee from costs in the cases provided for individuals.

Words worth knowing

Costas del proceso (court costs)
The expenses of a lawsuit: lawyer and court representative fees, fees and other payments. The court decides which party pays them.
Temeridad (recklessness)
Acting in court recklessly or without reasonable grounds.
Mala fe (bad faith)
Acting with intent to deceive or harm.
Allanamiento (acceptance of the claim)
When the defendant accepts the plaintiff's claims from the start.
Desistimiento (withdrawal)
When the plaintiff withdraws the claim and ends the case.

It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 4 of 7 steps. It reached Committee, and today it is unfinished.

  1. Introduced14 September 2017Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted19 September 2017The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendments24 November 2017Groups propose changes.
  4. Committee4 April 2018A committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 10 official steps on a timeline
Sept 2017Dec 2017Mar 2018Jun 2018Sept 2018Dec 201811. 14 September 2017: Presentación22. 19 September 2017: Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales Publicación desde 19/09/2017 hasta 22/09/201733. 19 September 2017: Calificación44. 22 September 2017: Gobierno Contestación desde 22/09/2017 hasta 27/10/2017 Nota: El escrito de contestación del Gobierno fue retirado con el presentado con el número de registro 54004.55. 30 October 2017: Pleno Toma en consideración desde 30/10/2017 hasta 14/11/201766. 14 November 2017: Mesa del Congreso Acuerdo subsiguiente a la toma en consideración desde 14/11/2017 hasta 21/11/201777. 21 November 2017: Comisión de Justicia Publicación desde 21/11/2017 hasta 24/11/201788. 24 November 2017: Comisión de Justicia Enmiendas desde 24/11/2017 hasta 04/04/201899. 4 April 2018: Comisión de Justicia Informe desde 04/04/2018 hasta 05/03/20191010. 5 March 2019: Concluido - (Caducado) desde 05/03/2019 hasta 27/03/2019

14 November 2017

How did the plenary vote?

More votes in favour 259 yes · 75 no · 2 abst.

Voted on: Private member's bill of the Socialist Parliamentary Group, amending Act 1/2000, of 7 January, on Civil Procedure and Act 29/1998, of 13 July, regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, in matters of costs of the process.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 85· updated 10 Nov

Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.

Your province

How did the deputies from your province vote?

And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.

Or see how most of each province voted
More details: how each group and each province voted

The groups

Who voted in favour and who against?

In favour, most of Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Mixto, Ciudadanos and Popular en el Congreso. Against, most of Gcup-ec-em and GER. 6 deputies voted differently from their group.

By province: in 50 most voted in favour; in 0, against.

Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.

  • In favour: 50
  • Against: 0
  • Tie: 2
Result by parliamentary group
GroupSeatsHow it voted
Socialista84
82 in favour · 2 did not vote
Vasco (EAJ-PNV)5
4 in favour · 1 did not vote
Mixto19
15 in favour · 3 against · 1 abst.
Ciudadanos32
31 in favour · 1 did not vote
Gcup-ec-em67
62 against · 1 abst. · 4 did not vote
GER9
9 against
Popular en el Congreso134
127 in favour · 1 against · 6 did not vote

What happens next

What happens now?

The legislature ended before it finished. To go on, someone would have to introduce it again in the new Cortes.

It has not been presented again yet.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.

Read the full method · Report an error