The paper analyzes a judgment issued by the Supreme Court in which the majority vote, on the occasion of a judicial remedy, qualified the service of the decision that declared the evidentiary period initiated to only one of the parties, as a useful and suitable measure to interrupt the six-month period of Article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure that regulates the abandonment of the procedure.

In particular, the arguments put forward by the majority vote are examined, challenging: i) The reference to the pro actione principle as a reason for restrictively interpreting the rules of abandonment of the procedure; ii) The use of the hypothetical suppression criterion in the analysis of the usefulness of an action; iii) The understanding that a greater number of parties in a procedure represents a reason to argue that there is no legal requirement to serve all the parties with the evidence resolution within a six-month period. Likewise, the consequences of sustaining the position of the majority vote are analyzed.

Only available in Spanish