Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the concept or power to judge and at the same time to execute what has been judged, so it is an action that corresponds to the judges, as well as to the whole of the judicial power according to the laws.

What is jurisdiction in Spain?

In other words, jurisdiction is the power and function that judges fulfill in order to resolve conflicts that come to trial, as long as they are within their powers. In this sense, when it is specified within the powers, it refers to the fact that not all judges can judge everything because the Law will be the one that will establish which judges will be in charge of one or some specific cases.

Jurisdiction and jurisdiction

On the other hand, it is important to note that the concepts of jurisdiction and jurisdiction are, in general, extremely similar.

Judicial jurisdiction refers to the entire set of processes that a court can exercise depending on its jurisdiction and also in accordance with the law. However, from a less objective perspective, jurisdiction is defined as the power that assists the court with the objective of hearing a specific matter and which is established as priority over other judicial bodies.

According to the above, to clearly understand the concept of jurisdiction, it is also necessary to understand the concept of jurisdiction because they are two elements that are closely related. In this sense, modern laws as they are currently conceived invest jurisdiction over certain public bodies, as well as Courts and Tribunals. Hence, the main fusion of the same is to judge and enforce what has been judged.

Jurisdiction characteristics

The definition of jurisdiction meets certain basic characteristics, among which the following stand out:

• It belongs to the judiciary, so it is a public power.
• The last manifestation of the jurisdiction is the sentence. That is why when the sentence is completely final, it is considered res judicata, so the case cannot be brought before another judge to be tried again.
• Everything related to the judiciary must be 100% independent. Therefore, both judges and courts must submit to what is established within the framework of the Law, without any type of the external influence. Neither can they receive external pressure of any kind, nor be involved in the corresponding conflict to be resolved.
• Jurisdiction will always be subject to the law, so judges will never be able to resolve a certain conflict based on their experience or opinion. Hence, they can only apply the law through the sentence that serves to put an end to the said judicial conflict.
• There will not be, at any time, exceptional jurisdictions unless so provided by law. This means that there will be no jurisdictions for different people, and that is why the jurisdiction is completely unitary, as is the case of judging men and women. An exceptional example of this is military jurisdiction.
• The law establishes certain guarantees to guarantee a transparent process. The consequence is that the revocation of a judge can be requested by the people who have brought their conflict before the judiciary, considering that this judge has some type of personal interest with one of the parties.
• Judges, on the other hand, can also refrain from resolving a conflict when they determine that their objectivity and independence is completely compromised.
• Both the judges and the courts in general have established some incompatibilities with the position in the judiciary. The objective of these incompatibilities is to guarantee that, at no time, judges can be influenced and not resolve conflicts based on the law.

According to the foregoing, the concept of jurisdictional conflicts emerges , which are those that may arise between an ordinary court and the military courts, as well as in the ordinary court and the Administrations. And all this depends on who has the competence for certain actions.

In this sense, a conflict of jurisdiction occurs when a dispute is generated between the Courts and Tribunals of any order of the ordinary Jurisdiction and those of the military jurisdiction.

These cases would be resolved by the Chamber of Conflicts of Jurisdiction, which is made up of the President of the Supreme Court, and two Magistrates of the Military Chamber, who in turn are appointed by the Plenary of the General Council of the Judiciary.

Voluntary jurisdiction

Voluntary jurisdiction is the definition of specific facts or acts in which the Law requires the intervention of an authority, either to declare or to establish a legal relationship, also defined as the constitution of a right, authorizing an act or giving authenticity to a fact.

In this sense, it is a concept that stands out for the absence of contradiction, which is why only a part of the judicial pronouncement intervenes, as well as, on occasion, the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The legal nature of this concept is closely related to the bodies that may be holders of said jurisdiction and, in a second term, the concepts of object and purpose are included. Voluntary jurisdiction is, in other words, a function of the tending State whose objective is to achieve legal protection of the private system.

Similarly, it is important to note that voluntary jurisdiction is not contentious. However, this does not mean that at some point it cannot deploy its objective scope on a specific procedure, which is based on legal relationships that are determined to be litigious. Voluntary jurisdiction may also affect the specific fulfillment of certain duties.

Conclusion

Jurisdiction is the concept of being able to judge and enforce what has been judged, which will be limited by certain laws of functional and territorial jurisdiction. In this sense, the law will always mark the jurisdictional power of the judge, who will judge said lawsuit based on the territory and action.