had standing to bring a claim

Discussion in 'Legal Terminology' started by Ramocion, Apr 30, 2012.

  1. Ramocion New Member

    I'm writing my thesis in Spanish but my sources are in English and I need some help to know exactly what does it mean "standing" in the following context:<br>"The Tribunal held that the U.S. investor had standing to bring a claim for the injury to the Congolese company".

    Does it mean something like legitimacy to prosecute?

    Thank you so much for your help!

    Have a nice day.
  2. chicanul Senior Member


    Yes, that is it, something like "razones/motivos suficientes"...que su argumento estaba bien fundamentado...:)
  3. Ramocion New Member

    Ahh, ok... mil gracias!!
  4. horatioh4 New Member

    In the case cited, legal standing would not refer to motives/reasons for prosecution but rather to the legal right to do so. That right might be based on the fact that the person or government suffered some harm or was aggrieved by the other party, and that harm would be a motive. But the standing itself is not the motive, but rather the right to take legal action.
  5. Hulalessar

    Hulalessar Senior Member

    English - England
    Standing or locus standi is not so much the right to bring a case as such, but rather showing you have sufficient interest to bring a particular action.

    For example, under English law, if C trespasses on land leased by A to B, B has the standing to sue because he is the one entitled to use the land, but A does not because he has granted the exclusive right of occupation to B for the length of the lease.
  6. horatioh4 New Member


    Ok, but the point is that "standing" does not refer to the specific nature of the wrong (the act of trespassing), the reason or motive for the suit, but rather the interest. The fact that the land is under the control of B gives him interest, which means that he was the one aggrieved as opposed to, say, D. In English, there is a clear distinction between "standing" and "motive/reason." D could try to bring suit against C for the same motive or reason as B: because C trespassed on B's land. But he doesn't have standing, because he has no legal interest in the land. So the court would refuse to hear the case. This is the reason for the distinction in the first place. So, I'm just wondering if Spanish makes the same distinction. It seems to me that in legal discourse, there would be a need to do so. Another thread mentions the term "legitmación activa." Is that the equivalent to the English use of "standing?"
  7. Hulalessar

    Hulalessar Senior Member

    English - England
    I do not know if there is a precise equivalent under Spanish law or any other civil law system. Googling I have found the Spanish phrase capacidad procesal which seems to be a near if not an exact equivalent.
  8. robjh22 Senior Member

    U.S.A. & English
    Capacidad procesal sounds really good, but I've edited to acknowledge your concern below.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2013
  9. horatioh4 New Member

    Actually, armed now with the terms "capacidad procesal" and "legitimacion" and google, I think I'm clear. Capacidad procesal does not refer to standing. I'm not sure what the equivalent of "capacidad procesal" would be in English, but it refers to the ability to actually act in legal proceedings. This is distinguished from "capacidad juridica," which every person has by virtue of being a person, from the time of their birth to the time of their death. A child, would have capacidad juridica but not capacidad procesal. And what we refer to as standing is "legitimacion" in Spanish, defined as follows: Puede definirse como reconocimiento que el ordenamiento jurídico hace a favor de una persona de la posibilidad de realizar con eficacia un acto jurídico, derivando dicha posibilidad de la relación existente entre el sujeto que actúa y los bienes o intereses a que su acto atienda.
  10. robjh22 Senior Member

    U.S.A. & English
    Hmmm. Okay. So if a stepfather tried to bring an action on behalf of an injured stepson whom he had not adopted, and if the law stated that only a biological father or a person who has actually adopted the child could bring the action, I would say the stepfather lacked standing to bring the suit. Is this what legitimación is?
  11. robjh22 Senior Member

    U.S.A. & English
    Looks like capacidad procesal corresponds to the English "procedural capacity." This is from the La. Code of Civil Procedure:

    Art. 683. Unemancipated minor

    A. An unemancipated minor does not have the procedural capacity to sue.
  12. RicardoElAbogado Senior Member

    SF Bay Area, California
    American English
    And what we refer to in the other 49 states as "capacity to sue." :)
  13. Hulalessar

    Hulalessar Senior Member

    English - England
    Perhaps capacidad procesal is not appropriate after all.

    We need to distinguish between:

    (a) a person not having the right to sue at all whatever the case


    (b) a person not having the right to sue in a particular case because the law does not deem him to have sufficient interest in it
  14. horatioh4 New Member

    Actually, I think that every person has the right to sue by virtue of being a person. I think the law makes 3 distinctions:

    1. capacidad juridica: every person, by virtue of being a person has certain interests (at the very least an interest in one's own safety and well being, but also possibly an interest in property). And because of this, every person has the right to bring suit if those interests are compromised. However, see #2.

    2. capacidad procesal: not every person has the capacity to bring suit. For example, children, the mentally handicapped, the mentally insane can all have an interest in their own safety or in property, but they do not have the capacity to sue. So in those cases, suit can be brought in their name by someone else.

    3. legitimacion: here, it looks like we have to distinguish between legitimacion activa, which would translate as "standing," and legitimacion pasiva, which I don't think translates as "standing." Legitimacion in general refers to the relationship of interest between the person and the issue that the juridical act addresses. Legitimacion activa would refer to the possibility of exercising a right (i.e., taking legal action) based on having an interest in the issue addressed in the legal action. Legitimacion pasiva would refer to the possibility of suffering the consequences of legal action by virtue of having an interest in the issue addressed by said action. If I understand this correctly, legitimacion activa would generally pertain to the plaintiff and legitimacion pasiva would pertain to the defendant. Given the meaning of the term "legitimacion" in Spanish, it makes sense that it would apply to both the plaintiff's and the defendant's relationship to the issue. But the semantic field of "standing" in English isn't as broad. My impression is that "standing" in English only refers to the relationship of the plaintiff to the issue addressed in the legal action, not to that of the defendant. Maybe Ricardo could help out here?

    This site won't let me post a link for some reason, but this is all explained in an online enciclopedia juridica under the entry "capacidad de obrar de la persona individua." If you google it, it should come up.

Share This Page