Which article refers to the victim`s right to request information about a trial? Could it be that the judge of the contested administrative cases cannot take measures at the first hearing to clear the proceedings of possible procedural nullities for nullity? Article 372 of the General Rules of Procedure establishes the « review of legality » as one of the stages of the first hearing, which is intended to enable the court to correct any irregularities in the proceedings which may give rise to penalties of mutual assistance or to give rise to grounds for annulment which, consequently, give rise to grounds for annulment. They may not be invoked a posteriori, except in the case of major events. Or could it be that, despite the omission, the judge retains this possibility, as is the case in the ordinary courts? Similarly, Article 77(1)(2) of the Code of Labour Procedure provides that the court is to take the necessary measures at the first hearing to avoid obstruction judgments and procedural nullities. On the contrary, Article 180 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and Administrative Litigation (CPACA), which governs the practice and conduct of the first hearing, provides that the reorganisation measures which the holder of the office may take are those aimed at avoiding obstructive judgments, leaving aside any reference to procedural nullities. The truth is that if it were to be interpreted as meaning that the omission in the CPACA rule would result as a legal consequence the inadmissibility of the adoption of reorganisation measures by the court with regard to configurative situations of procedural nullity, we would conclude that such hypothetical events would not be remedied (except for those which should have been formulated as provisional objections and not during the period of transfer of the claim). and therefore, they could subsequently be invoked by the person entitled to do so. What are the legal implications of the omission on the CAAA rule?.