We have in several articles reiterated previously the change of criterion adopted by the Supreme Court in relation to the right of those who have experienced a situation of custody to be compensated in cases of not guilty plea or in cases of dismissal.
We have already pointed out that compared to the previous criterion that now exists, the Supreme Court establishes the right to compensation, and subsequently the Constitutional Court has declared the validity of this Jurisprudence, hence, as we warned, there would be an important number of claims.
Now, as we have been able to read, the Administration of Justice expects a flood of complaints and that is why it is establishing criteria with which to respond to as many complaints as there are going to be.
Firstly, it must be borne in mind that the Supreme Court’s own sentence establishes who can claim, who will be the ones who will face administrative or criminal proceedings which are not firm, and also the new cases.
Secondly, it must not be forgotten that any claim for compensation of damages must first be claimed through the administrative way. Well then, in this way, in the appeals what the State Administration will require is that it is proven that there has been damage. It will be studied case by case.
The personal circumstances of each case and the different economic capacities will not be taken into account, but the same standards will be applied to all.
Thirdly, in the event that the State Administration considers that it is worthy of compensation, it will take into account the factors established in the sentence of the Supreme Court, i.e. the minimum inter-professional salary, the IPREM (Spanish Public Income Indicator of Multiple Effects), and the legally established compensation scales in the event of traffic accidents.
According to researches, the application of these three factors could yield an average of between 17 and 52 euros per day.
What is clear is that the State Administration is not going to deal with subjective situations, it is not going to discuss the greater or lesser damage, but instead it has objectified as much as possible so that it achieves a lowering of the compensation bill.
After this procedure the people not satisfied will have to resort to the judicial way through the appropriate administrative appeal and there before a Judge, it can be said that each case is different and the real damages that have been caused will be examined and can be claimed.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that the Administration may, in cases in which the person is imprisoned for other reasons, compensate for the days spent in prison, and that this benefit and right to compensation for damages may not be applied to those who have suffered this situation of custody (pretrial detention) as a result of their rebellious attitude when meeting the requirements of the Court.
