Article 8 and CGP articles 291 and 292: two regimes that do not mix

Two routes to the same personal notice

The Código General del Proceso governs personal notice by summons (art. 291) and, if the defendant does not appear, by aviso (art. 292), both with email variants. Ley 2213 of 2022 added another route: sending the court order as a data message, with no prior summons or aviso (art. 8).

The Supreme Court has held that the two regimes coexist, that each has its own requirements and that they must not be mixed (STC7684-2021, STC913-2022, STC8125-2022, STC11127-2022).

What article 8 requires

Send the order and the exhibits for the traslado by the same means; state under oath that the address is the one the defendant uses; report how it was obtained; and file the evidence. Nothing more: so held the Civil Chamber in STC16733-2022 and the Labour Chamber in STL7023-2023.

What not to import from the CGP

The summons and the aviso are not part of article 8, and neither are the contents art. 292 requires of an aviso. In STC4737-2023 the Supreme Court set aside a nullity declared because the message did not state the date of the order or when notice would be complete: that was demanding what the statute does not.

Even so, including those details in the message is good practice. Not because the statute asks for it, but because it removes an argument in any later nullity motion.

In the memorial

The memorial reporting the notification should invoke article 8 and article 8 alone, with the sworn statement, the source of the address, the evidence, the record of sending and delivery and the computation of the dates. The article 8 guide walks through each point.