The aim is to analyse the way in which the case law provides for the assignment of the right of appeal. 2.2. The position most often supported by the courts is that which rejects the exception to the absence of an active legal status in order to understand that the assignment of the right of appeal is valid. The assignment of a right of appeal to a third party to manage that right in its own name and at its own risk is in fact an assignment of a claim ex art. 1112 CC and, as such, perfectly valid with the only aforementioned limitations (law, rights of agreement and absolute rights). We must ask ourselves whether the so-called assignment of receivables requires any formalism in order to be fully effective. By judgment of the Commercial Court No. 3 of Palma de Mallorca of 20 December 2018, it was found that, in these cases, since the contract is not assigned, but only the credit, such an assignment does not require an authentic deed or, logically and as provided for in our Civil Code, the agreement of the debtor. “Therefore, there is no legal prohibition on assignment, as we are not dealing with a non-transferable or absolute right of its kind, so the assignment of receivables is not challenged. In short, the derogation from the portability of claims does not apply, i.e.

(i) the particularity of the credit in question, either because the creditor determines the characteristics of the provision or because it is, for example, an ancillary right to another capital that cannot be separated from the first; (ii) the existence of a contractual prohibition (pactum de non cedendo); or (iii) a legal prohibition. That is why we understand that restrictive interpretations of the assignment of such claims by the courts may not only contravene their regulation within the European Economic Committee, but also unduly restrict commercial transactions and unduly impede the right to effective judicial protection. The Santander court expressly excludes the collection administration as a recognized ground for assignment, in order to understand that such a transaction is inconsistent and does not imply an effective transfer of credit. Such an imperative provides for assignment in the broad sense and regulates only two exceptions to the free transmission of credit: (i) the law may provide for something else or (ii) unless otherwise agreed (pactum non cedendo, a concept that we will examine below). .