Saturday, November 27

The Supreme reprimands Vox and PP for exercising a “popular action of a political nature” against government decisions

The Supreme Court has made public the two sentences that reject the appeals of Vox and the Popular Party against the appointment of Dolores Delgado as State Attorney General. Two resolutions in which the judges launch harsh reproaches to both parties for trying to exercise a “popular action of a political nature” that does not exist in the Law to appeal government appointments and acts that are not entitled to appeal. The judges also drop that their decision was predictable due to their “overwhelming” jurisprudence with more than 20 cases resolved in a similar sense in recent years.

Convictions on costs and reproaches of the Supreme Court: the failures of Vox in Justice that silences the party

Know more

Both PP and Vox took the appointment of Delgado before the third chamber of the Supreme Court denouncing that his political past in the ranks of the PSOE as a deputy and as Minister of Justice posed too great a doubt about his impartiality to be at the head of the Prosecutor’s Office. At first, a group of magistrates requested that the case be brought to full session but finally it fell into the hands of a section led by César Tolosa, president of the contentious-administrative chamber.

The Supreme Court did not even get into the merits of the matter and devotes more than twenty pages to explaining why, in the first place, neither of the two parties is entitled to appeal this appointment. The ruling recognizes that political parties “are fundamental instruments for the political participation of citizens in the democratic State” but adds that this does not allow them to exercise constant popular action against the acts of the Government. That condition, say the judges, “is not sufficient, by itself, to confer legitimacy in challenging any act that may have political relevance or that may be considered a political act” if there is no connection between the rights and interests of the individual. party and appellate appointment.

It is here when the room, with the magistrate Pilar Teso as speaker, launches the harshest reproaches to the resources of Vox and PP. Allowing them to appeal matters such as the appointment of Delgado would suppose “a universal legitimacy to challenge any act that had a political nature, impact or repercussion” and that “would amount to establishing, ultimately, a popular action of a political nature, fast of legal coverage.” Control of the Government, recalls the sentence, is exercised through deputies and senators but not necessarily through the courts.

This, remember the Supreme, is not a novelty. The judges say that “our jurisprudence is overwhelming in declaring that the active legitimacy of political parties does not concur, in general, to challenge any action” of the Government or other public administrations. They cite up to 24 resolutions from the same third chamber in that sense, some of which have been dictated in processes arising from appeals brought precisely by Vox and the Popular Party and also by other parties such as the PSOE, Izquierda Unida or UPyD. The constitutional relevance of the parties and their function of control to the Government, they emphasize, “cannot serve as a justification to confer that universal action that allows to challenge the actions of the Government and the Administration, from which they may legitimately disagree.”

The more than 20 cases presented to justify its decision, adds the Supreme Court, not only implies that its jurisprudence “is not new or recent.” What is “a novelty”, say the judges, is the increase in political parties that go to the Supreme Court to challenge acts of the Government or other public administrations. They speak of an “increase in the frequency with which, at present, the parties go to this Third Chamber. And that is what has determined an increase in the inadmissibility resolutions for this cause”, they settle.

The political discrepancy, therefore, does not legitimize Vox and PP to take their parliamentary contests to the Supreme Court indiscriminately. The Supreme Court clearly says that “it is not enough for a person to disagree with an act, or it is justifiably considered that it is not in accordance with the Law, to proceed to challenge it before the judges and courts of our jurisdictional order. It is also necessary that mediate a concrete and determined relationship between the subject making the appeal and the object of the process “.

The rejection of both resources has an economic cost for Vox and the PP. Their claims have been rejected outright, without even having to study the merits of the matter, so they are sentenced to pay costs: each party must pay up to a maximum of 4,000 euros each for the judicial resources mobilized to resolve resources that neither they could even interpose. As explained in this report, it is common for the criminal and contentious judicial actions announced by Vox before the Supreme Court to end in dismissal, inadmissions and convictions on costs that are often silenced by the party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *