Durañona y Vedia, Juan et al v. Augustine National State
2 ª INSTANCE. National Chamber FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ROOM III. Buenos Aires, April 11, 1995. Views: Considering the nature of the case merit, quality and effectiveness of the work of professionals who spoke for the plaintiff in the cause of pure law is declared, the amount of trial and the fact that to bind the litigation had been dictated by the pronouncements in Alzada which set a doctrine which was referred the resolution of these cars, it is noted that the strict application of the fee outright for this type of process, would cause an obvious and unjustified disparity between the importance of work actually completed and compensation that under those rules would be applicable tariff.
This being so the species is justified in not attending to the percentages established by the arts. 7 and 9 of Law 21,839 (conf art. 13 of Law 24,432).
redúcense Therefore the sum of one hundred thousand pesos ($ 100,000) together 'fees for the legal management and legal representation of the plaintiff, keeping the aspect ratio set by the court a quo Mrs. fs. 653. Register, report and return. - Roberto M. Mordeglia - Guillermo Andres Muñoz. - Jorge E. Argento.
CS, Buenos Aires February 27, 1997. - Having regard to the present Durañona y Vedia, Juan et al v. Augustine National State s / know judgments.
Whereas: 1 That the Court of Appeals in Administrative Matters Federal (Room III) reduced professional fees covered in the first instance ($ 1,256,600) to address legal and representation of the plaintiff the sum of $ 100,000 for implementation of art. 13 of Law 24,432.
That article states that judges should regulate legal fees without regard to the amounts or minimum percentages established in the national or local tariff schemes, where the characteristics of the work involved the application to designate a reasonably smooth and level of these tariffs would cause a clear and unjustified disparity between the importance of working effectively fulfilled, the remuneration received. Against that decision Durañona doctors and Vedia, Silvano and Piccirilli-beneficiaries of such regulation appealed extraordinary.
2 nd That the appellants made the following offenses: A) The House violated art. 18 of the Constitution suddenly applying the art. 13 of Law 24,432, giving no opportunity for stakeholders to expose the legal and factual reasons that determined their inapplicability to the case.
B) The Chamber erred in not giving arbitrary reason to apply the cited art. 13. According to the appellant, the complexity of professional tasks they performed did not justify the application of the rule in question.
C) The lower court granted the 24,432 law no retroactive effect under that law.
D) That filing resulted in the violation of the rights acquired by the appellants under the rule of law 21,839. To establish this position, the appellants cite numerous precedents of the Court had developed the concept of entitlement.
a quo granted the extraordinary remedy. For existing federal issue, the controversial retroactive application of the reform art. 77 of the Civil cp art. 9 of Law 24,432 and have been the ruling adverse to the appellant's claims ... and in both the issues contested by the taint of arbitrariness deal actually about the intelligence of those rules ..., or save them such an intimate connection that prevents the consideration coupled ... (Pages 758/758 row.).
3 º, under the terms of resolution transcribed, it is clear that the Court's jurisdiction is limited in case a question of interpretation, understanding and exegesis of rules, while the lower court did not give the claimed arbitrary recursive own autonomy.
4 That, from this perspective, it is noted that the rule in question is actually Art. 13 of Law 24,432 and not the art. 9 material error as mentioned in the order of grant (acc. failure fs camera. 680/680 row. fs and extraordinary appeal. 706/729).
5 That if it becomes apparent that Article 13 is a common-law rule as it is complementary to the civil code (conf art. 15 of Law 24 432) - and that its constitutionality has been challenged by the appellants , it resolved that the special appeal is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Therefore, the appeal inadmissible. With costs. Presents notified and refunded. - Julio S. Nazarene. - Charles S. Fayt. - Eduardo Moline O'Connor (dissenting). - Augusto Cesar Belluscio (dissenting). - Henry S. Petracchi. - Anthony Boggiano (their vote). - Guillermo Lopez AF (in dissenting). - Adolfo Roberto Vazquez.
VOTE MINISTER ANTONIO DOCTOR BOGGIANO. - Considering: That the special appeal is inadmissible (art. 280 of the civil and commercial procedural code of the Nation).
Therefore, the special appeal inadmissible. Presents notified and refunded. - Antonio Boggiano.
dissidents Mr. Vice President Eduardo Moline O'Connor DOCTOR DON AND DON MINISTERS Augusto Cesar Belluscio DOCTORS AND DON GUILLERMO LóPEZ AF. Whereas: 1 That the room III of the National Chamber of Appeals in Federal Administrative reduced legal fees of the plaintiff attorneys to the sum of $ 100,000-in the previous instance had been set at $ 1,256,600, with foundations in the art. 13 of Law 24,432. Against this statement the lawyers filed the special appeal of fs. 706/729 fs which was granted. 758.
2 nd That the grievances of the appellants raise federal issue for treatment at the track tried, because if it is true that the issues pertaining to the regulated fees in previous instances, such as the temporal scope to be given to a rule of law common, are foreign, in principle, the panel of art. 14 of Act 48, it is not an obstacle to discredit the ruling when the contested decision is not a rational derivation of existing law in accordance with the records of the case and this leads to an obvious impairment of the rights to fair compensation and property embodied in the arts. 14 bis and 17 of the Constitution (Bugs: 304:1050, among others).
3 ° That this court has decided several times that the Constitution does not impose a version of regulation on validity intertemporal law, as the legislator or judge, in their respective areas, may establish or rule that the new law destroy or modify a simple interest, a simple right or existing right of expectation. But also highlighted, with particular emphasis, that neither the legislator nor the judge could, under a new law or its interpretation, to snatch or altering a property right acquired under the previous legislation, as in this case the non-retroactivity principle ceases to be a standard infra to be confused with the guarantee of the inviolability of property recognized by the Supreme Law (Decisions: 178:431, 238:496 and causes J.13.XXVI Jawetz, Alberto s / appeal resolution Retirement Fund, Retirement and Pensions of the Federal Police March 24, 1994 [ ED, 158-324].
4 That, moreover, this Court has stated that for the right acquired and, therefore, is forbidden to implement the new law, it is necessary that the holder has completed, under the enforcement of the rule repeal or modify substantive conditions and formal requirements of the Act to be the holder of the right at issue, though lacking the formal declaration of a decision or administrative act (acc. Failures : 298:472, 304:871 and 314:481).
5 That in the sub lite is not disputed that the lawyers for the plaintiffs met all of its professional management in the first instance before the entry into force of the Law 24,432, so the decision a quo that on the basis of the new legal guidelines, reduced the fees that they had been regulated, meant to attribute to the standard used, which is part of the code provides civil and not a temporary term of retroactive is not compatible with the protection of the constitutional guarantee that says affected.
6 th May, in effect, the sub judice the professional work of lawyers, on behalf of 305 players in their own right were made prior to the enactment of the disputed law, so from there was born a situation specific and individual legal head of the appellants that, as such, it is unalterable and can not be deleted, or modified by subsequent legislation without detriment to property rights enshrined in art. 17 of the Constitution (acc. Bugs: 306:1799).
7 º That, in this vein, the Court also said that the law is not applicable tariff came into effect after acceptance and execution of the task, because the professional can not be deprived of the economic rights acquired under a previous legislation (Bugs: 268-561), but it would inhibit the circumstance of being pending the determination of their fees, since the legal regulation only adds a recognition, and quantification of a preexisting right to payment of professional work ( Confrn. arg. Bugs: 296:723 and 314:481).
8 th May, in such circumstances and with no grounds to accept the adjustment amount practiced in the first instance, it is to rise to the grievances of the appellant, as the scope of the camera has given 24,432 law show that mediates direct and immediate link between the decision and the constitutional guarantees that they say violated (art. 15 of Law 48).
Therefore, it is stated from the special appeal and annulling the regulation effected. Costas on the order in response to the application of the law challenged by the appellants was ordered by the court ex officio. Return the case to the Court of origin so that, through whom it may concern, proceed to issue new ruling, according to the statement. Notifíquese and refer. - Eduardo Moline O'Connor. - Augusto Cesar Belluscio. - Guillermo López AF.
0 comments:
Post a Comment