The Objective Accumulation of Legal Actions

What is the accumulation of actions?

The accumulation of procedural objects (accumulation of actions), takes place when several claims are resolved in a single process. It is regulated in articles 71 to 73 of the Civil Procedure Law. The first of them (we will refer to it extensively below) is the objective accumulation. The next one refers to subjective joinder and the last one to the requirements of both.

What do we mean by objective accumulation of actions?

The objective accumulation of actions implies the filing of several claims by a plaintiff against a defendant. The only requirement that must be met is that the actions are not incompatible with each other. Except when they deal with subordinate claims, in which case the actions may be of an incompatible nature.

The purpose of the joinder is to discuss all the actions in the same proceeding, resolving them in a single judgment (Article 71.1 Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil – “LEC” – Civil Procedure Act).

The LEC is, in general terms, very flexible in admitting the accumulation of actions. But even more so when we refer to the objective accumulation. The plaintiff can freely accumulate the actions he/she considers appropriate against the defendant. However, there are actions which, although they are intended to be joined, turn out to be incompatible.

The Supreme Court Decision (“STS”) 389/2003 of April 10, 2003 establishes on the objective accumulation of actions that it will not be possible to demand material compatibility if it is formulated on a contingent or subsidiary basis.

Which legal actions are incompatible and therefore cannot be joined (except in a subordinate form?

• Those that are mutually exclusive (SAP Santa Cruz de Tenerife 7/2015, January 16).
• Those that are contrary to each other (SAP Ciudad Real 148/2015, May 21).
• Those in which the granting of one makes ineffective or prevents the exercise of the other.

Si te ha interesado este artículo no dudes en leer:

The direct action of art. 1597 CC. (2020)

The art. 1597 of the Civil Code, provides for a special regime for the protection of credits derived from a work contract. It is what is called "direct action"

What requirements must be complied with in the objective joinder of actions?

1) Subjective aspects

The Court must have jurisdiction and competence in the subject matter and/or amount of the actions to be joined. (Art. 73.1.1.1 LEC).

To know the territorial jurisdiction of the Court we must go to Article 53.1 LEC. The Court that corresponds to the action that serves as the basis for the other actions will have jurisdiction. Failing that, the one that would have to hear the largest number of joined actions. Lastly, if none of the foregoing cases apply, the Court with jurisdiction jurisdiction over the  most quantitatively relevant action shall be competent.

The power to join actions corresponds to the plaintiff (Art. 71.2 LEC).

The plaintiff can accumulate as many actions as he want, as long as there is a nexus by cause of action.

2) Objective aspects

This requirement deals with the requirement of compatibility of the claims for their accumulation (art. 71.2 LEC).

Prohibition and exceptions to the objective accumulation in the verbal lawsuits.

(Verbal lawsuits: That which is held when the amount of what is being litigated is less than six thousand euros or for the specific grounds indicated in the LEC).

The accumulation of actions is intended to avoid unnecessary litigation (procedural economy), facilitating the substantiation and decision of the proceedings. For this reason, counterclaims are prohibited if they are not related to the plaintiff’s claim.

The objective accumulation entails the general principle of non-admissibility in oral proceedings. Except in the following four cases (art. 437.4 LEC):

1. When the verbal lawsuit proceeds and the accumulation is based on the same facts.
2. When the accumulation of actions is prejudicial to the action for compensation for damages.
3. Where the accumulation is for income rents, estate evictions of property by non-payment or by contractual or legal expiration of the term independently of the amount claimed. It can also be made against the guarantor or joint guarantor when the unsatisfied payment has been previously requested.
4. Divorce, separation or annulment legal procedures and those that try to obtain civil effectiveness of ecclesiastical resolutions or decisions. When the accumulation of actions is prejudicial to the action for compensation for damages.

What does the case law tell us about the objective accumulation of actions?

The STS of 19/01/2012, rec. 141/2009 explains clearly and concisely what the objective accumulation is. That is, a plurality of claims that are substantiated in the same process. This is the basis of both procedural economy and effective judicial protection. In addition, there is a diversity of objects of a procedural nature and a unity of claims processed in a single proceeding.

As previously mentioned, the STS 39/2003 of April 10, 2003 establishes that material compatibility cannot be required. When the actions are formulated on a contingent or subsidiary basis.

STS 880/2002, of October 3, 2002, establishes four characteristics that must concur in order to establish the objective accumulation of actions. The aforementioned characteristics are:

• The flexibility that must govern the objective accumulation of actions.
• The distinction between the cause of action (event suitable to produce legal effects) and the title (as legal business).
• The relevance of the legal or causal connection between the actions filed. This as a measuring criterion of the identity of the cause of action. And also the relevance of the accumulation and the decision by a single judgment.
• The avoidance of undue delays without limiting the means of challenge and defense.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the objective accumulation of actions prevents contradictory sentences and favors procedural economy. Therefore, it is positive to use this weapon, when appropriate and being careful to comply with the requirements.

If this article has been of interest, we also suggest you to read the following article published on our website: Can liability action and director’s liability action be joined in the same lawsuit?