Don Benjamin, SA Defendant: National Agency of Electricity Regulation
under Action. Environmental impact of a measure adopted by the State Don Benjamin, SA c. National Agency of Electricity Regulation.
Delhi, February 24, 1999. -
Vista: This case No. 56,617, caratulas Don Benjamin, SA c. National Agency of Electricity Regulation s / amparo, coming from the Federal Court No. 1 of the seat, put the agreement to resolve the appeal by agreement Don Benjamin, SA-fs. 125/133 row .-; the appeal deducted by Mr. Attorney-fs. 135/137-, and the appeal raised by local residents (awarded by this camera is dated 02/19/1999, before the complaint on appeal denied), against the decision of first instance rejected the attempted action under -fs. .-. Row 109/117 Mr. Judge
Dr. House Plans, said
I. That the reasoning of the judge rejects the defense lies in: a) not to accede to the standing claimed by the prosecution, or attempted by the residents of the region. This well-hold a quo ", as the exceptional nature of the action under the terms of art. 43, 2 nd paragraph of the Constitution, which only gives legitimacy as well as the concerned, the Ombudsman and the associations for the defense of collective rights. In this sense, he adds at once, "not to be confused-then-these collective rights, with the general interests of society (art. 120, CN). At the same time "not manifestly appropriate authorization to operate as such individuals by denying them both, therefore, alleged interventions, b) not to grant amparo filed by Don Benjamin, SA since, the invalidity of the act requires a broader discussion or evidence (art. 2, inc. d, 16,986 law [ED, 16-967]) and that the existence of a pending cause-Cia. Transener, SA c. Don Benjamin, SA s / busway administrative servitude of passage, (expte. No. 8300/98) filed in Federal Court No. 2, sec. 5 of the venue, impedes the progress of the action to watch as prescribed by art. 3 of Law No. 16,986.
II. Repels the appellant quo reasoning to saying that the amparo has ceased to be exceptional and restrictive interpretation, questioning, at the same time, the character failure dogmatic in that the judge does not indicate what degree the ordinary way most appropriate to cease the arbitrary. It expresses
turn, which is not true that the conflict that blew requires further discussion or evidence in response to a comparative environmental impact study would be presented within five working days approximately, by a specialist or UNS- .
That continues his criticism pointing to the stranger standing, and says about Don Benjamin, SA was made in the process as twofold: as an owner and a concerned and in defense of collective rights, and that neighbors affected have been adhering to initial presentation. To this effect the lower court has merely stated a publication to reject it, even though the possibility of acting in defense of the environment was recognized even before the reform of the Constitution. And that is the relapsing-signatories in the sub-review-act in the public interest, heritage tourism and natural resources of the region and that article. 43 of the Constitution should become operational well-being to their constituents, actions considered "directly affected" (a term that "questioning is not defined by the trial judge).
What about the injunction against acts of the Judicial-emerges clearly states the plaintiff, which attacks an administrative decision and that, in the species-people are not identical, object and procedural claim. That does not preclude the defense may be tried before by Ms. Dorton.
That, finally, calls for opening the process admitting the presentation of its individual constituents in reversing the rejection by the judge decreed limine grade.
III. That offends the Federal District Attorney believes that while progress can not be affected by the action of protection (art. 43, CN) with purely procedural-greater range of debate or test-(art. 2, inc. D ), 16,986 law cited by the lower court relied on the decision-making), because that would affect rights and constitutional guarantees, noting that, for that matter-there are enough records.
that in response to the rejection of a party, in sub-lite of the Public Ministry submits that it adhere to a test for standing broad and that when he ran vista-timely-(art. 25, Law 24,946 [Edla , 1998-A-113]) it was because it corresponds to promote actions in court to defend the legality and general interests of society.
What about the neighbors who joined the initial presentation, they are mentioned explicitly in the second paragraph of art. 43 of the Constitution (affected), whereas it is the Attorney General implicitly.
IV. Appeal the decision that denied a party to regional neighbors, the trial judge refused the grade appeal, he argues, mindful that third party intervention-fs becomes final. -. 134 And, before this decision-making neighbors come in grievance appeal is denied, solving this House dated 19/2/99- make room for it refused to grant resources.
V. Mr. Attorney General, in turn, in view afforded by art. Act 25 of the Public Prosecutor, says the use of inferior quality continues its legitimate assets, highlights the extreme factual and provides documentation issued by the own ENRE.
VI. Begins by saying that the rejection in limine in an action under (with all that it is inherent) only corresponds to a demand improponible objectively as famous for years taught doctrine, v. Morello, Berizonce, Peyrano-XI Congress Nat D. Procedure, JA, 1981-III-788/795. On this first base
then be defined within the narrow recursive: if we have a true act of environmental protection (because it is not all environmental), and then analyze the decided lack of legitimacy of the presenters.
a) The owner-plaintiff: Really with fine and deep analysis of amparo-fs. 133 - appellant claims the protection of the right that art. 41 of the Constitution expressly grants, and beyond what is at stake in the case (added by line photocopy) busway easement.
What comes first, "I say is that it is plain that the claim does not cover the damage to be compensated for suffering, but to avoid the damage, which is an earlier, more perfect for things to return to its previous state ( re-establishment, art. 41, Constitution). Because one thing is the compensation for damage caused by a busway that can cover up the landscape theme (v. Marienhoff, Easement busway, ED, 173-1043) emerging from the law (19 552 and its reform) and quite another is analyzed within the orbit of under avoidable environmental damage also has a constitutional (not statutory)-arts. 41 and 43, CN.
I am aware that the protection is not the way to replace judges of the case, (as taught Palace: in DPC-VII-152), but it just happens when trying to supplant the decision that that other incumbent judge, and here the actions of the Federal Court No. 2 is not enough to take the concept of view of knowledge. And a synthesis
In this regard, because the aim is now different (even distinguish range), or because there is no view of knowledge, not for very exceptional close this road to the owner the farm affected by the proposed busway.
b) For the other amparo be analyzed if we are, "he said at first, before an environmental protection because it is not supported on our system or class actions (class actions), and popular action. Dice
Valls (Environmental Law, 5 th ed., 1997, pg. 41) that the environment depends on the destination that the man assigned to a surface, eg industrial park, natural park, rural, urban, etc., so that combining this first principle must analyze the intended aim of avoidable harm to the environment. He says "page. 216 op. cit .- busway carries a risk of electric shock, disfigurement of the environment, radiotelephony intereferences and television, lighting, sound, and the corona that can harm living things. But this is not the only qualified opinion that we can place in the subject because ENRE itself prescribes the preservation of the environment (see Annex fs. 151/159).
Then, just on the precise idea of \u200b\u200bthe environment and the effects by a busway, as quoted, is seen in the light of the protection claimed, that there is a normative basis, which qualifies the area of \u200b\u200bresidence of those covered, without subjective analysis, namely: the law 11.750/96 of the Province of Buenos Aires and its explanatory memorandum (pages 40 and 44) \u200b\u200billustrates tourism interests in the region, like the decision of the City Council Tornquist Party (pages 144), which places the interpreter on the particular environment. Based on this environmental
qualified we have a collective amparo (v. Sagüés, El Amparo, ed. 1995, pg. 670 and Sigtes., Bustamante Alsina, Environmental Law, ed. 1995, pp. 68/78).
believe that the doctrine of qualified majority and these details do not doubt the existence of diffuse interests, because as Bidart Campos: otherwise it is a number and all would become no one and none with quote exemplary case of the Constitutional Court of Spain (ED 166-860).
are diffuse interests that inform us about the nature of concerned (art. 43, Const. Nac) v. Sagüés Morello, op. cit., p.. 357; Sagüés and broader legitimacy to reports, on page. 674; (Rivas, El Amparo, pg. 243) distinction between collective and diffuse interests; Ekmekdjian (in A Treatise on Constitutional Law, Vol IV, pg. 67) indicating the extent granted by art. 43 of the Constitution, with Dromi-Menem quoted the revised Constitution - 1994, pg. 163 and de Santis, the constitutional protection of the environment in LL, 08.23.1995, Quiroga Lavie, human rights and his defense in court, pg. 421; to return to Morello, The injunction after the constitutional reform pg. 240; Gozaíni, the right of amparo, 1995, pg. 76 and ED, 165-214 Court appointment of Federal Capital.
In light of this doctrine, that pretentious malaria in Sierra de la Ventana and its adjoining Saldungaray shares are entitled to protection of their self-interest and collective (because they are all, or have an exclusive right). That this feature of community, collective, and judging by the general arts. 120 of the Constitution, 25 and 41 of Law 24,946, the Public Prosecutor is entitled to promote this view, art. 90, inc. 2, CPCC-all of which supports the request for revocation of the order is not part (when previously and had had-fs. 34, pp. 39, pp. 106, art. 34, inc. 4, CPCC) corresponding, therefore, be given transfer to ENRE in terms of Law 16,986 (arts. 41 and 43, CN) of amparo filed by: Don Benjamin, SA, and Mr. Miguel Angel Breti, Matías González Saenz, Jorge Pablo Ichaso, Hugo Bertellys, Anabel Youglard, José Manuel del Río Salerno, Sebastián Fontana, Guillermo Cabezas, Antonio Wienberg, Gaston Paul Lladó. So vote. Mr. Judge
camera, Dr. Fernandez said: 1 º
agree, in principle, the rating action and environmental protection, temporarily and regardless of fundabilidad articulated the claim, without taking sides in the name of the allegedly affected interests (collective, of collective or diffuse).
I think people who have signed visible existence demand or acceded to it are, as such, have standing to bring this agreement pursuant to Art. 43 of the Constitution, to claim the protection of the environment, and also temporarily signing Don Benjamin, SA (reported residing in the city of Buenos Aires), despite not being an inhabitant as stated in the application (the companies have home, art. 90, inc. 3, Ref. civil, not purple), sed non concessum datum hypothetically can take the character concerned (art. 43, Part 2, Const. Nac).
But notice that for the process to continue usefully managers must meet before the issuance of the decision terminating the same at first instance (given the summary nature of the shelter and short deadlines) to set the caseload art. 48 of CPCCN and under penalty there ready.
2 In regard to the U.S. Attorney who is giving sight to the end of competition and in terms of art. 25 of Law 24,946, I think the solution should be other than that proposed in the previous vote.
says the Attorney General in his letter of fs. 174/187 and row. that unaware of the Public Prosecutor's standing as a person ... has the legal possibility of bringing an action under a claim becomes devoid of any sense (pages 177).
3 In fact, it is known that state bodies have only the powers or the powers expressly recognized by law. Its powers are limited, they can exercise their powers only to the extent they are permitted. On the contrary, people have all rights and are denied only the exercise of normatively prohibited situation arising from the interpretation of the arts. 14, 15, 19, 28, 37, 38, 42, 43 and 75, incs. 17, 22 and 23 of the Constitution (cf. Dromi-Menem, the revised Constitution, ed. Ciudad Argentina, 1994, pg. 49). 4 º
Thus, when art. 43 refers to any person, is without effort referred to above in art. 30 of the Civil Code, but not state bodies, which are not.
only right to bring action under the protection of the environment concerned, the ombudsman and the associations which foster such ends (art. 43, part 2.) Instead, prosecutors must play its role in coordination with other authorities (article 120, Const. Nac). Note
also the different legislative technique used by law 24,946 to delineate the roles and prosecutors at first instance. Art. 39 stipulates that should be involved in processes under the circumstances and manner established by this Act and its regulations.
In contrast, art. 41 sets up its duties and powers become party to all causes or proceedings in which the public interest so requires and to prevent, avoid or remedy damage caused or likely caused ... the environment ... in those cases and under procedures prescribed by law (whether existing or subsequently enacted.)
But becoming a party does not mean you can sue on behalf of an undetermined number individuals, because that legitimacy has been conferred on the Ombudsman to represent those affected promiscuously collectively (art. 86 and 43, Part 2, Const. Nac) and the U.S. Attorney is not entitled to try the action alone. The public prosecutor's duty is to ensure legal certainty (cf. op. Cit., P.. 68 and art. 25, Law 24,946), its function is exercised in coordination with other authorities (article 120, Const. Nac ) and its constitutional legitimacy "of origin" has the limits in its organic law that I have already mentioned above (cf. also art. 25, inc. d], Law 24,946).
the foregoing, I believe that no can continue to intervene in the case of Attorney as a carrier of action identical to that brought by the individuals concerned, having limited its actions to the provisions of art. 25 of Law 24,946, inc. a), under the terms of his art. 41 and Art. 21 of the law of habeas corpus 23,098 (by analogy). So vote. Mr. Judge
House Argañaraz doctor said,
1 ° For the reduction of the period of administration (art. 48, CPCC) to make it compatible with the summary nature of the protection and the tight deadline, I believe that it does not is practicable, since according to art. 17 of Law 16,986 is for going to the art. 48 CPCC that allows a period of forty days.
2 In point to the objection of the 2 nd vote on the Attorney General can not sue on behalf of an unspecified number of individuals, or try alone action, subscribe to his objection. I persuaded by the argument
art. 43 of the Constitution, which is the standard of the law precedence over 24,946. In fact, art. 43 of the National Constitution, states (as exhaustive) that may bring action in respect of the rights that protect the environment, etc., The affected, the ombudsman and the associations which foster such ends.
However, it is my opinion that does not diminish at all the powers of Public Prosecutions in accordance with Art. 41 of Act 24,946 the subject matter, because its judges may be involved in all cases or judicial proceedings in the public interest so requires, etc.., And interpret the powers of the Public Prosecutor in this matter must be understood as the law of habeas corpus 23,098, ie the Public Prosecutor referred to the proceedings have all the rights granted to other participants. May submit the request to deem appropriate and have the decision whichever way it (Law 23,098, art. 21).
A merit of the vote to instruct the present Agreement shall be resolved: Revoke the order of fs. 109/117 and row. and have by the presenantes fs. 18/33, 37/38 and 100/101, sending substantiate the action brought, and have the Attorney General by, under the terms of the arts. 41 of Act 24,946 and 21 of the law of habeas corpus 23,098. With Mr. Justice Federal news no. 2. Notified, registered and be refunded. - Angel Augusto Alberto Enrique Fernandez .- Argañaraz. - Ricardo Emilio plans (depending on your vote) (Sec.: Daniel Jose Labastie).
Dr. House Plans, said
I. That the reasoning of the judge rejects the defense lies in: a) not to accede to the standing claimed by the prosecution, or attempted by the residents of the region. This well-hold a quo ", as the exceptional nature of the action under the terms of art. 43, 2 nd paragraph of the Constitution, which only gives legitimacy as well as the concerned, the Ombudsman and the associations for the defense of collective rights. In this sense, he adds at once, "not to be confused-then-these collective rights, with the general interests of society (art. 120, CN). At the same time "not manifestly appropriate authorization to operate as such individuals by denying them both, therefore, alleged interventions, b) not to grant amparo filed by Don Benjamin, SA since, the invalidity of the act requires a broader discussion or evidence (art. 2, inc. d, 16,986 law [ED, 16-967]) and that the existence of a pending cause-Cia. Transener, SA c. Don Benjamin, SA s / busway administrative servitude of passage, (expte. No. 8300/98) filed in Federal Court No. 2, sec. 5 of the venue, impedes the progress of the action to watch as prescribed by art. 3 of Law No. 16,986.
II. Repels the appellant quo reasoning to saying that the amparo has ceased to be exceptional and restrictive interpretation, questioning, at the same time, the character failure dogmatic in that the judge does not indicate what degree the ordinary way most appropriate to cease the arbitrary. It expresses
turn, which is not true that the conflict that blew requires further discussion or evidence in response to a comparative environmental impact study would be presented within five working days approximately, by a specialist or UNS- .
That continues his criticism pointing to the stranger standing, and says about Don Benjamin, SA was made in the process as twofold: as an owner and a concerned and in defense of collective rights, and that neighbors affected have been adhering to initial presentation. To this effect the lower court has merely stated a publication to reject it, even though the possibility of acting in defense of the environment was recognized even before the reform of the Constitution. And that is the relapsing-signatories in the sub-review-act in the public interest, heritage tourism and natural resources of the region and that article. 43 of the Constitution should become operational well-being to their constituents, actions considered "directly affected" (a term that "questioning is not defined by the trial judge).
What about the injunction against acts of the Judicial-emerges clearly states the plaintiff, which attacks an administrative decision and that, in the species-people are not identical, object and procedural claim. That does not preclude the defense may be tried before by Ms. Dorton.
That, finally, calls for opening the process admitting the presentation of its individual constituents in reversing the rejection by the judge decreed limine grade.
III. That offends the Federal District Attorney believes that while progress can not be affected by the action of protection (art. 43, CN) with purely procedural-greater range of debate or test-(art. 2, inc. D ), 16,986 law cited by the lower court relied on the decision-making), because that would affect rights and constitutional guarantees, noting that, for that matter-there are enough records.
that in response to the rejection of a party, in sub-lite of the Public Ministry submits that it adhere to a test for standing broad and that when he ran vista-timely-(art. 25, Law 24,946 [Edla , 1998-A-113]) it was because it corresponds to promote actions in court to defend the legality and general interests of society.
What about the neighbors who joined the initial presentation, they are mentioned explicitly in the second paragraph of art. 43 of the Constitution (affected), whereas it is the Attorney General implicitly.
IV. Appeal the decision that denied a party to regional neighbors, the trial judge refused the grade appeal, he argues, mindful that third party intervention-fs becomes final. -. 134 And, before this decision-making neighbors come in grievance appeal is denied, solving this House dated 19/2/99- make room for it refused to grant resources.
V. Mr. Attorney General, in turn, in view afforded by art. Act 25 of the Public Prosecutor, says the use of inferior quality continues its legitimate assets, highlights the extreme factual and provides documentation issued by the own ENRE.
VI. Begins by saying that the rejection in limine in an action under (with all that it is inherent) only corresponds to a demand improponible objectively as famous for years taught doctrine, v. Morello, Berizonce, Peyrano-XI Congress Nat D. Procedure, JA, 1981-III-788/795. On this first base
then be defined within the narrow recursive: if we have a true act of environmental protection (because it is not all environmental), and then analyze the decided lack of legitimacy of the presenters.
a) The owner-plaintiff: Really with fine and deep analysis of amparo-fs. 133 - appellant claims the protection of the right that art. 41 of the Constitution expressly grants, and beyond what is at stake in the case (added by line photocopy) busway easement.
What comes first, "I say is that it is plain that the claim does not cover the damage to be compensated for suffering, but to avoid the damage, which is an earlier, more perfect for things to return to its previous state ( re-establishment, art. 41, Constitution). Because one thing is the compensation for damage caused by a busway that can cover up the landscape theme (v. Marienhoff, Easement busway, ED, 173-1043) emerging from the law (19 552 and its reform) and quite another is analyzed within the orbit of under avoidable environmental damage also has a constitutional (not statutory)-arts. 41 and 43, CN.
I am aware that the protection is not the way to replace judges of the case, (as taught Palace: in DPC-VII-152), but it just happens when trying to supplant the decision that that other incumbent judge, and here the actions of the Federal Court No. 2 is not enough to take the concept of view of knowledge. And a synthesis
In this regard, because the aim is now different (even distinguish range), or because there is no view of knowledge, not for very exceptional close this road to the owner the farm affected by the proposed busway.
b) For the other amparo be analyzed if we are, "he said at first, before an environmental protection because it is not supported on our system or class actions (class actions), and popular action. Dice
Valls (Environmental Law, 5 th ed., 1997, pg. 41) that the environment depends on the destination that the man assigned to a surface, eg industrial park, natural park, rural, urban, etc., so that combining this first principle must analyze the intended aim of avoidable harm to the environment. He says "page. 216 op. cit .- busway carries a risk of electric shock, disfigurement of the environment, radiotelephony intereferences and television, lighting, sound, and the corona that can harm living things. But this is not the only qualified opinion that we can place in the subject because ENRE itself prescribes the preservation of the environment (see Annex fs. 151/159).
Then, just on the precise idea of \u200b\u200bthe environment and the effects by a busway, as quoted, is seen in the light of the protection claimed, that there is a normative basis, which qualifies the area of \u200b\u200bresidence of those covered, without subjective analysis, namely: the law 11.750/96 of the Province of Buenos Aires and its explanatory memorandum (pages 40 and 44) \u200b\u200billustrates tourism interests in the region, like the decision of the City Council Tornquist Party (pages 144), which places the interpreter on the particular environment. Based on this environmental
qualified we have a collective amparo (v. Sagüés, El Amparo, ed. 1995, pg. 670 and Sigtes., Bustamante Alsina, Environmental Law, ed. 1995, pp. 68/78).
believe that the doctrine of qualified majority and these details do not doubt the existence of diffuse interests, because as Bidart Campos: otherwise it is a number and all would become no one and none with quote exemplary case of the Constitutional Court of Spain (ED 166-860).
are diffuse interests that inform us about the nature of concerned (art. 43, Const. Nac) v. Sagüés Morello, op. cit., p.. 357; Sagüés and broader legitimacy to reports, on page. 674; (Rivas, El Amparo, pg. 243) distinction between collective and diffuse interests; Ekmekdjian (in A Treatise on Constitutional Law, Vol IV, pg. 67) indicating the extent granted by art. 43 of the Constitution, with Dromi-Menem quoted the revised Constitution - 1994, pg. 163 and de Santis, the constitutional protection of the environment in LL, 08.23.1995, Quiroga Lavie, human rights and his defense in court, pg. 421; to return to Morello, The injunction after the constitutional reform pg. 240; Gozaíni, the right of amparo, 1995, pg. 76 and ED, 165-214 Court appointment of Federal Capital.
In light of this doctrine, that pretentious malaria in Sierra de la Ventana and its adjoining Saldungaray shares are entitled to protection of their self-interest and collective (because they are all, or have an exclusive right). That this feature of community, collective, and judging by the general arts. 120 of the Constitution, 25 and 41 of Law 24,946, the Public Prosecutor is entitled to promote this view, art. 90, inc. 2, CPCC-all of which supports the request for revocation of the order is not part (when previously and had had-fs. 34, pp. 39, pp. 106, art. 34, inc. 4, CPCC) corresponding, therefore, be given transfer to ENRE in terms of Law 16,986 (arts. 41 and 43, CN) of amparo filed by: Don Benjamin, SA, and Mr. Miguel Angel Breti, Matías González Saenz, Jorge Pablo Ichaso, Hugo Bertellys, Anabel Youglard, José Manuel del Río Salerno, Sebastián Fontana, Guillermo Cabezas, Antonio Wienberg, Gaston Paul Lladó. So vote. Mr. Judge
camera, Dr. Fernandez said: 1 º
agree, in principle, the rating action and environmental protection, temporarily and regardless of fundabilidad articulated the claim, without taking sides in the name of the allegedly affected interests (collective, of collective or diffuse).
I think people who have signed visible existence demand or acceded to it are, as such, have standing to bring this agreement pursuant to Art. 43 of the Constitution, to claim the protection of the environment, and also temporarily signing Don Benjamin, SA (reported residing in the city of Buenos Aires), despite not being an inhabitant as stated in the application (the companies have home, art. 90, inc. 3, Ref. civil, not purple), sed non concessum datum hypothetically can take the character concerned (art. 43, Part 2, Const. Nac).
But notice that for the process to continue usefully managers must meet before the issuance of the decision terminating the same at first instance (given the summary nature of the shelter and short deadlines) to set the caseload art. 48 of CPCCN and under penalty there ready.
2 In regard to the U.S. Attorney who is giving sight to the end of competition and in terms of art. 25 of Law 24,946, I think the solution should be other than that proposed in the previous vote.
says the Attorney General in his letter of fs. 174/187 and row. that unaware of the Public Prosecutor's standing as a person ... has the legal possibility of bringing an action under a claim becomes devoid of any sense (pages 177).
3 In fact, it is known that state bodies have only the powers or the powers expressly recognized by law. Its powers are limited, they can exercise their powers only to the extent they are permitted. On the contrary, people have all rights and are denied only the exercise of normatively prohibited situation arising from the interpretation of the arts. 14, 15, 19, 28, 37, 38, 42, 43 and 75, incs. 17, 22 and 23 of the Constitution (cf. Dromi-Menem, the revised Constitution, ed. Ciudad Argentina, 1994, pg. 49). 4 º
Thus, when art. 43 refers to any person, is without effort referred to above in art. 30 of the Civil Code, but not state bodies, which are not.
only right to bring action under the protection of the environment concerned, the ombudsman and the associations which foster such ends (art. 43, part 2.) Instead, prosecutors must play its role in coordination with other authorities (article 120, Const. Nac). Note
also the different legislative technique used by law 24,946 to delineate the roles and prosecutors at first instance. Art. 39 stipulates that should be involved in processes under the circumstances and manner established by this Act and its regulations.
In contrast, art. 41 sets up its duties and powers become party to all causes or proceedings in which the public interest so requires and to prevent, avoid or remedy damage caused or likely caused ... the environment ... in those cases and under procedures prescribed by law (whether existing or subsequently enacted.)
But becoming a party does not mean you can sue on behalf of an undetermined number individuals, because that legitimacy has been conferred on the Ombudsman to represent those affected promiscuously collectively (art. 86 and 43, Part 2, Const. Nac) and the U.S. Attorney is not entitled to try the action alone. The public prosecutor's duty is to ensure legal certainty (cf. op. Cit., P.. 68 and art. 25, Law 24,946), its function is exercised in coordination with other authorities (article 120, Const. Nac ) and its constitutional legitimacy "of origin" has the limits in its organic law that I have already mentioned above (cf. also art. 25, inc. d], Law 24,946).
the foregoing, I believe that no can continue to intervene in the case of Attorney as a carrier of action identical to that brought by the individuals concerned, having limited its actions to the provisions of art. 25 of Law 24,946, inc. a), under the terms of his art. 41 and Art. 21 of the law of habeas corpus 23,098 (by analogy). So vote. Mr. Judge
House Argañaraz doctor said,
1 ° For the reduction of the period of administration (art. 48, CPCC) to make it compatible with the summary nature of the protection and the tight deadline, I believe that it does not is practicable, since according to art. 17 of Law 16,986 is for going to the art. 48 CPCC that allows a period of forty days.
2 In point to the objection of the 2 nd vote on the Attorney General can not sue on behalf of an unspecified number of individuals, or try alone action, subscribe to his objection. I persuaded by the argument
art. 43 of the Constitution, which is the standard of the law precedence over 24,946. In fact, art. 43 of the National Constitution, states (as exhaustive) that may bring action in respect of the rights that protect the environment, etc., The affected, the ombudsman and the associations which foster such ends.
However, it is my opinion that does not diminish at all the powers of Public Prosecutions in accordance with Art. 41 of Act 24,946 the subject matter, because its judges may be involved in all cases or judicial proceedings in the public interest so requires, etc.., And interpret the powers of the Public Prosecutor in this matter must be understood as the law of habeas corpus 23,098, ie the Public Prosecutor referred to the proceedings have all the rights granted to other participants. May submit the request to deem appropriate and have the decision whichever way it (Law 23,098, art. 21).
A merit of the vote to instruct the present Agreement shall be resolved: Revoke the order of fs. 109/117 and row. and have by the presenantes fs. 18/33, 37/38 and 100/101, sending substantiate the action brought, and have the Attorney General by, under the terms of the arts. 41 of Act 24,946 and 21 of the law of habeas corpus 23,098. With Mr. Justice Federal news no. 2. Notified, registered and be refunded. - Angel Augusto Alberto Enrique Fernandez .- Argañaraz. - Ricardo Emilio plans (depending on your vote) (Sec.: Daniel Jose Labastie).
0 comments:
Post a Comment