Which article concerns the right of the victim to request information about a trial? Could it be that, in the administrative matters at issue, the judge at the first hearing cannot take measures to clarify the procedure of the possible grounds for annulment configured? Article 372 of the Rules of General Procedure establishes the `review of legality` as one of the stages of the first hearing intended to enable the court to correct any irregularities in the procedure which may lead to the inhibition of penalties or give rise to grounds for annulment, which can therefore be relied on at a later date only if they replace facts. On the contrary, Article 180 of the Rules of Procedure for Administrative Procedures and Administrative Disputes (CPACA) governs the practice and development of the first hearing according to which the hygiene measures which the holder of the Office may take are those aimed at avoiding penalties for impediment, without taking into account any reference to procedural annulments. 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 impediment penalties and procedural errors. The truth is that if interpreted to mean that the omission in the CPACA rule as a legal consequence would imply the inadmissibility of the adoption by the judge of remedial measures in relation to situations constituting a procedural nullity, we would conclude that such hypothetical events would not be corrected (with the exception of those that should have been formulated as previous objections and not during the duration of the transfer of the application). and therefore they could be invoked later by the person who was entitled to do so. Or could it be that, despite the omission, the judge retains this possibility, as is the case in the ordinary jurisdiction? What is the legal effect of the omission in the CPACA rule?.