It has generally been understood that the legal figure of joint custody is the most beneficial manner in which a child, whose parents have separated, can be raised, as it insures continuous contact with both parents. joint custody involves awarding custody of a child or children to both parties in a legal dispute, ensuring that both mother and father are considered “custodial parents”, neither of them being considered to have less or more rights than the other.

This figure marks a shift in legal considerations operating in European countries prior to the late twentieth century. While children in the nineteenth century were considered in most legal systems to be the property of the father, the shifting patterns of family life that resulted from the industrial revolution gave rise to an increase in maternal rights and influence during the twentieth century, the “tender years doctrine” being a prime example of this shift. It became, and continues to be common that a mother acquires sole custody of a minor, the father being relegated to the position of “non-custodial parent”.

Given the frequency of such Echoes of this outlook can be found in the recent Spanish Supreme Court Decision, reached on the 27^th of May before the Civil Chamber.

This decision was adopted in response to an appeal, in which the father requested joint custody, rejecting allegations that his delicate financial situation made him unfit to be a joint-custodial parent and showing his willingness to move house in order to be close to his daughter and keep up continuous contact with her.

The father´s defense had alluded to consistent case law, favourable to joint custody, denouncing a clear infringement of article 92 of Spain´s Civil Code, which established the interest of the child as the guiding principle in cases of this type.

What should you do in order to get joint custody?

The Supreme Court, however, was adamant that the “concrete circumstances of the case” ought to be the guiding criteria for any decision taken. Controversially, the Court´s main objection to joint custody appears to be the existence of a “situation of conflict” between the parents, which, according to the Court, is sufficient to establish that the interests of the child would not be served under a system of joint custody.

In the “situations of conflict” between separated mothers and fathers, it remains to be seen whether this new criterion will lead to greater difficulty for fathers in achieving their custodial rights. It may even become the case that one party simply alleging or creating such a conflict could allow them to effectively curtail the possibility of joint custody.

Careful examination of the ever-changing case law surrounding custodial rights leaves no doubt as to the need for experienced legal assistance in these matters and, at Lexland Lawyers, our seasoned professionals would be delighted to give you a first consultation free of charge. Do not let unresolved doubts stand in the way of your parental rights.

Non Residents in Spain, as well as those Residents in Spain that inherited from a Non Resident, used to pay Inheritance and Gift Tax in Spain according to the National Legislation, while those tax payers that were Resident in Spain, receiving inheritance from another Resident, were able to benefit from the Regional Legislation of the region in which the deceased had his or her domicile before their death, being entitled to a series of tax cuts.

This has led to situations where, for example, one brother resident in Spain, and his father resident in Andalusia, paid no taxes in Spain by the acquisition by inheritance of a property valued at € 170,000 upon application of the regional rules, while the other brother, paid taxes for the acquisition of that property by the mere fact of him living in the UK, due to the applied state regulation..

In the end, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered this contrary to the principles of free movement of people and capital within the European Union regulations. Therefore, further steps to alleviate such situations were introduced.

After the new connection points were introduced in late 2014, the rules of the Autonomous Community of residence of the deceased or, with the non-resident decedent, where the inherited assets of the highest value are located will apply. These can also be applied to non-residents in Spain but residing in any country of the European Union.

Requesting the refund for the amount paid

As we have mentioned, the entry into force of this legislation will occur on the 1^st of January 2015. However, we esteem that, from this date and as long as the period of statutory limitations has not been reached, European Union residents that have been on the receiving end of discriminatory treatment due to internal Spanish legislation will be able to apply for the return of the sums paid, in application of the regional legislation that would have been applicable if they had been residents in Spain.

At Lexland we have team of specialists who handle these types of claims, so if you are resident in the EU or, being resident in Spain, were not able to benefit from the regional legislation, due to the deceased being resident in another EU country, call us and we wil advise you regarding the convenience of applying for the return of the Inheritance and Gift Tax that is due to you.

La pregunta, ¿puede mi jefe controlar mi correo electrónico? ha sido una de las preguntas más repetidas de los últimos tiempos, a la cual no encontraremos respuesta en ninguna norma. La incorporación de las TIC (tecnologías de la información y de las comunicaciones), a nuestra vida cotidiana ha provocado que los empresarios se vean en la necesidad de compatibilizar el uso de los ordenadores, correos electrónicos y teléfonos a nivel personal y profesional, pues nada de esto se recoge en las normas laborales.

En este sentido, los trabajadores están protegidos por el derecho fundamental a la intimidad y al secreto de las comunicaciones. No obstante, dentro de una relación laboral dichos derechos no son absolutos, pues el empresario también tiene derecho  a proteger su patrimonio empresarial y a controlar el buen desempeño del trabajador durante su jornada laboral y verificar que los medios o herramientas informáticas que se entregan a los trabajadores son utilizadas para fines profesionales.

Teniendo en cuenta el escenario anterior nos encontramos con la siguiente pregunta: ¿vulneraría el empresario los derechos fundamentales de los trabajadores si controla su correo electrónico, ordenador y teléfono?

Pues bien, como hemos comentado al principio del artículo nada se regula en la Ley, teniendo que acudir a los pronunciamientos judiciales para encontrar la respuesta. En este sentido el Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Social) en su Sentencia de 26 de septiembre de 2.007 entendió que “aunque el trabajador tiene derecho al respeto a su intimidad, no puede imponer ese respeto cuando utiliza un medio proporcionado por la empresa en contra de las instrucciones establecidas por ésta para su uso y al margen de los controles previstos para esa utilización y para garantizar la permanencia del servicio”.

En el párrafo anterior encontramos la clave de este asunto, es completamente necesario que el empresario establezca las reglas del juego en este sentido y que las comunique fehacientemente a los trabajadores. Es decir, es necesario tener un código de uso de las herramientas informáticas en el que el empresario determine si el uso personal por parte de los trabajadores de las TIC está permitido o no está permitido y éste deberá comunicarse a los trabajadores y que esté a su disposición.

Por tanto, si existe un código y se comunica a los trabajadores, desaparecería la expectativa de confidencialidad y el control y vigilancia del correo electrónico del trabajador estarían en principio permitidos, sin que se produzca en tal caso vulneración del secreto de las comunicaciones. De esta manera, si los medios proporcionados por la empresa se utilizan para usos privados en contra de estas prohibiciones y con conocimiento de los controles y medidas aplicables, no podrá entenderse que, al realizarse el control, se ha vulnerado “una expectativa razonable de intimidad” en los términos que establece el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

En definitiva, lo determinante para que el jefe pueda legalmente “espiar” el correo de sus empleados es que previamente haya informado a los trabajadores y que dichos controles sean proporcionales con el fin o la información que se pretende obtener.

Por lo que si te encuentras en una situación parecida y no tienes claro si los empresarios han vulnerado tu derecho a la intimidad, ponte en contacto con nosotros y te resolveremos cualquier tipo de duda. Nuestra primera consulta es gratuita.

The following question: “Can my boss control my email?” has been one of the most repeated questions in recent times, being a question for which there is no definite answer. The incorporation of ICT (information and communication technology) into our daily lives has made employers see the need to adapt the use of computers, email accounts and telephones at a personal and professional level. However it seems that none of this has been incorporated into labor standards.

In this sense, workers are protected by the fundamental right to privacy and secrecy of communications. However, within an employment relationship such rights are not absolute, because the employer also has the right to protect their business assets and control the efficient performance of the employee during working hours and verify that the means or tools that are delivered to workers are used for professional purposes.

Given the abovementioned scenario, we must consider the following question: “Does the employer violate the fundamental rights of workers if he or she monitors employee´s email, computer and telephone?”

Truth be told, nothing is regulated by the Law, which makes us turn to judicial pronouncements in order to find the answer. In this regard, the Supreme Court (Sala de lo Social) in its judgment of the 26^th of September 2007 understood that “even if the worker is entitled to respect for their privacy, such respect of privacy cannot be imposed when the worker uses any means of media provided by the company against instructions issued by the latter to ensure continuity of service.”

In the previous paragraph, we find the key to this matter is for the employer to set the rules in this regard and communicate them to the workers. That is, it is essential to have a code of use of IT tools in which the employer determines whether the personal use of ICT by his or her workers is or isn´t allowed. This should be communicated to employees and be always available to them.

Therefore, if there is a code of use and it is communicated to the workers, the expectation of confidentiality will disappear and the monitoring of workers’ emails would be permitted, without resulting in the breach of confidentiality of privacy of communications. This means that, should company resources be used for private purposes, contravening Company rules and with full knowledge of the controls in place, such control cannot be considered an infringement of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the terms established by the European Court of Human Rights.

Ultimately, the determining condition that would give the employer the right to legally “monitor” employees´ mail is whether he or she had previously informed the workers of this and if such monitoring is within appropriate use.

If you find yourself in a similar situation and you are not sure if your employer has violated your privacy, please contact us and we will be happy to resolve any doubts. Our first consultation is free.

La adquisición de propiedades sitas en suelo rústico atrae cada vez a más clientes, sobre todo extranjeros.

Este tipo de propiedades, por su particularidad, pueden llegar a tener un suministro de agua por medio de pozos, por lo que es indispensable que su abogado haga una investigación exhaustiva sobre los mismos para evitar sorpresas desagradables.

Siguiendo con lo anterior, puede acontecer que el suministro provenga de un pozo comunitario; en tal caso, resulta indispensable saber en qué propiedad está sito y los acuerdos de suministro que existen para con el resto de las propiedades que reciban el suministro porque, de no existir acuerdo alguno o no ser suficiente proteccionista para las propiedades que se benefician de él, puede correrse el riesgo de cancelarse dicho suministro a la propiedad adquirida, con el consiguiente perjuicio para su propietario.

Otros de los aspectos a tener muy en cuenta en este tipo de propiedades es la legalidad de los pozos suministradores del agua, ya sean individuales o comunitarios, pues no en pocas ocasiones los propietarios desconocen que para evitar problemas futuros los pozos que suministran el agua a sus propiedades han de contar con las licencias oportunas, ya que la no tenencia de la misma acarrea importantes consecuencias.

Así, tal y como se expresa en la Ley 9/2010, de 30 de julio, de Aguas para Andalucía, en su artículo 104, la averiguación de la tenencia o no de las licencias preceptivas puede tener lugar por parte de las autoridades, los agentes de la autoridad y la guardería fluvial en el ejercicio de sus funciones de inspección programadas o expresamente ordenadas por las autoridades ambientales.

Los anteriores, tal y como se afirma en la ley aplicable, podrán acceder libremente sin aviso previo a las instalaciones respetando la inviolabilidad del domicilio, por lo que es importante ser plenamente consciente de que la falta de licencia en la tenencia de un pozo se considera una infracción grave, que puede desembocar en una multa de hasta 300.506,61 euros.

Además, en caso de considerarse infracción muy grave por los daños que dicho pozo ocasione, es importante tener en cuenta que, a parte de la sanción que lleve aparejada la conducta infractora (que puede ser de hasta 601.012,10 euros), pueden imponerse sanciones accesorias tales como que se declare la caducidad de la autorización o concesión del uso del agua, suspensión de la misma por un año e incluso la imposibilidad de obtención durante un año de préstamos, subvenciones o ayudas públicas en materia de medio ambiente.

El Departamento de Urbanismo de Lexland Abogados tiene una amplia experiencia en este tipo de propiedades y le asesorará sobre el estado de la vivienda a adquirir así como sobre la mejor forma de proceder en caso de suministro de agua por pozos. Recuerde que nuestra primera consulta es gratuita y sin ningún tipo de compromiso.

More and more people are interested in purchasing properties located on rustic land, especially foreigners.

Due to their particularity, these types of properties may have their water supply provided by wells. Therefore, it is essential that your lawyer carry out extensive legal searches, avoiding unpleasant surprises.

It may well be that the supply comes from a community well. If so, it is essential to know in which property it is located and the utility contracts that affect the rest of the properties that receive water, because, should there be no contract or should there be insufficient protection for properties that benefit from it, there can be a risk of cancellation of the water supply.

Another aspect to be taken into account is the legality of the wells that supply water, whether these be individual or communal, as in many cases owners are not aware that in order to avoid future problems, the wells must have the appropriate licenses, as their absence may result in negative consequences.

Therefore, as article 104 of the Andalusian Water Act states, inquiries as to whether there are sufficient licenses may be carried out by the authorities, the authority´s agents and the river guards during their survey functions.

As outlined by the law, the mentioned persons enjoy free access to the installations without prior notice, respecting the limits of the home. Therefore it is important to be fully aware that the absence of the license for a Well is deemed as a serious offence, which could have serious consequences, including a fine of up to 300,506.61 Euros.

Furthermore, in the event that the damage caused by the Well were considered a severe offence, it must be noted that, apart from the sanction for the illegal conduct (a fine of up to 601,012.10 Euros), complimentary sanctions could be imposed, such as the cancellation of the authorization or license for water use, suspension of the same for a year and even restrictions on obtaining loans, subsidies or government aids in environmental matters.

The Town Planning Department at Lexland Abogados has wide experience in this type of properties and will advise the client regarding the property´s situation, as well as regarding the best action to undertake when the water supply is provided by a well.