The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has refused to decree precautionary measures to teach, at least, one subject in Spanish in all Catalan schools, as the Association for a Bilingual School (AEB) had demanded in an appeal against the instructions of the Generalitat for the 2022-2023 academic year. In the resolution of the TSJC issued this past Friday by the Vacation Room, the court considers that “there is no place for the adoption of the precautionary measure interested by the appellant.”
Justice sees it impossible to execute 25% of Spanish at school after the new Government law
Catalan education has been weighed down for years by the ruling that requires teaching 25% of classes in Spanish in those classrooms where a student requests it, a minimum that the TSJC extended to the entire school system through a ruling in 2020. Before the ultimatum To apply what the end of linguistic immersion entails, the Parliament approved a new law with the support of ERC, Junts, Comuns and PSC that introduces Spanish as a “curricular” language, although without percentages. This turn meant the paralysis of the execution of the sentence and consultation was transferred to the Constitutional Court.
The appeal of the AEB was raised by the special procedure of protection of fundamental rights, in relation to which the month of August has a working nature, has indicated the Vacation Chamber of the TSJC. The Public Prosecutor, in a report requested by the same room, ruled against applying the precautionary measures, while the AEB spokeswoman, Ana Losada, has told Efe that they will appeal the order issued by the TSJC
In response to the appeal filed by the AEB on July 26, the fifth section of the TSJC issued an order two days later resolving to “dismiss the urgent precautionary measure in the terms demanded” and summoned the defendant Administration so that, “within a maximum of ten days, rule on the precautionary measure requested.” Thus, on August 11, 2022, the attorney for the Generalitat filed a brief before the same room ruling against the adoption of the requested precautionary measure and, at the request of the Vacation Room itself, the prosecutor issued a report that was entered on August 22 also against the adoption of the precautionary measure.
The TSJC, in the order made public last Friday, has argued that in order to apply precautionary measures the interested party (in this case the AEB) “has the burden of adequately proving what damages and losses of impossible or difficult repair concur in the case to agree the suspension, without a mere generic invocation sufficing”. Likewise, the Catalan High Court states that “the precautionary measures are intended to ensure that the consequences arising from the duration of the process are not irreparable.”
In the specific case, the TSJC recalls that the AEB asked to “order the Department of Education to adopt the necessary measures so that in the 2022-23 academic year it is included in the language projects of public and private educational centers supported with public funds by Spanish as the vehicular language of teaching and reference (in addition to Catalan, Aranese in the Arán Valley and Catalan sign language)”.
“Consequently with the above, at least one subject, subject, area or activity of a core or analogous nature (or the equivalent in the new curriculum) must be developed in Spanish and in the evaluation tests it must also be offered to Catalan students. the possibility of carrying out the exercises also in Spanish with the corresponding material in this official language”, according to the resolution presented by the AEB. Given this, the TSJC considers “the lack of specification of the damages that would derive in the event that the precautionary measure is not adopted” inadmissible and that this “does not constitute an end in itself, but its adoption must always be agreed taking into account very present the object of the main claim”.
For this reason, the Chamber argues that “it fails to see any loophole for the adoption of precautionary measures as the ‘periculum in mora’ is not determined in the appeal” (danger of delay). In this sense, the TSJC adds that “the lack of determination of the damages that should be avoided with the granting of the precautionary measure, shows that what is really intended is to advance the issuance of a favorable resolution to the appellant party ”. Said interest “which cannot be called reprehensible, will not be greatly diminished either”, according to the TSJC, which alludes to the fact that “we are in a summary procedure such as the fundamental rights procedure”.
Furthermore, the TSJC considers that the “’periculum in mora’ does not seem to be on the side of the requesting party either, given that the adoption of the measure could create an irreversibility”.