218. Furthermore, the Court observes that, in another 11 judgments that were provided, which decided appeals for annulment, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal analyzed the requirements stipulated in article 31 and their application by the Central Bank, but the arguments submitted regarding defects of consent or non-compliance with the obligation to provide information were not verified to confirm whether or not these had been constituted.267 Hence, in the same way as the administrative body, the tribunal responsible for deciding the judicial remedy (supra paras. 140 to 142) made an incomplete examination of the claims submitted to its consideration. 219. In one of these 11 cases the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal considered that, “despite the alleged fraud by the [Banco de Montevideo] of which the claimant says he was a victim with regard to his investment, at least a presumption of the claimant’s implied consent can be verified in relation to the operation carried out by the banking entity to which he entrusted his capital.”268 In addition, in another of these cases, the said tribunal considered that “[e]ven acknowledging that the information that the Banco de Montevideo provided [to the alleged victims who are claimants] was incomplete; that the name TCB on the statements could not be fully understood by the depositors, and that the operation was carried out from a checking account and not with certificates of deposit in an ‘On-demand deposits for stock trading’ account, the claimants had been unable to prove that they were depositors in the Banco de Montevideo and that their deposits were transferred to the TCB without their consent.”269 of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15144 to 15157) (11) Judgment No. 317 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 13, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Roelsgaard, Niels et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15611 to 15617). 267 Cf. (1) Judgment No. 138 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 8, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Dendrinos, Daniel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14368 to 14367); (2) Judgment No. 828 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of December 13, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Lijtenstein, Fabiana et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15062 to 15069); (3) Judgment No. 204 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 12, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Leroy, Jean et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15083 to 15090); (4) Judgment No. 578 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Guerra, Martín v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15182 to 15191); (5) Judgment No. 315 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gigli, María v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15192 to 15199); (6) Judgment No. 435 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of August 22, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Rama, Leandro v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15200 to 15206); (7) Judgment No. 408 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of July 25, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Atijas, Vito et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15407 to 15414); (8) Judgment No. 314 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Roure, Pablo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15603 to 15609); (9) Judgment No. 292 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 6, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Rodríguez, Marta v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15619 to 15629); (10) Judgment No. 272 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of June 4, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Notero, Ángel et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VII, attachment 27, folios 15619 to 15629), and (11) Judgment No. 179 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of April 30, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Neuschul, Thomas v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 14954 to 14963). Regarding this last case, the Court notes that the incomplete examination by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal is related to the allegation of the victim that the renewal of negotiable securities of Velox Investment Company had been carried out without his consent and not with defects of consent. 268 Judgment No. 314 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Roure, Pablo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume VII, attachment 27, folios 15607 and 15608). 269 Judgment No. 828 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of December 13, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Lijtenstein, Fabiana et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15068). 83