Dromi José Roberto
Opinion of the Attorney General Supreme Court:
V: E. I run new view on this incident which, by resolution of fs. 88/89, it was decided to return to Mr Justice Federal Catamarca with the warning that henceforth refrain from unnecessarily promote new approaches to competition.
A fs. 93/100 Caserta asked the accused the magistrate that the orders to rise again to the Court to resolve it definitively about the competition in this case, also based on having claimed his knowledge of both the federal justice Catamarca and the provincial had also made the Division II of the Court of Appeals in Federal Criminal Federal Capital.
Pursuant to that order the Judge decided to Federal Catamarca fs. 109 cars to raise awareness of V: \u200b\u200bE.
Beyond the objections from the formal point of view, to offer this procedure, I think to recall, as I indicated in my previous opinion of fs. 85/86, the Trial Chamber II of the Hon. Court of Appeals in Federal Criminal Federal Capital stated, by order of August 29, 1995, the jurisdiction of the courts to hear the case.
Catamarca provincial judge, for his part, rejected that approach inhibitory September 28 that year (see fs. A-14/95 record 33 of the Magistrate's Court Catamarca NQ 4, titled "Actions by the Judge sent a / c of the National Court Criminal and Correctional NQ 12 "). Corresponded, therefore, the latter judge to communicate that decision to the federal courts of the Capital, so it had a chance to accept or to insist on his request to defer and submit, in this case, the question to Knowledge VE (Bugs: 306:729 and appointments). ,
However, despite that the latter contention positive Competition is not properly locked to the failure to comply with that requirement, I think that considerations of judicial economy require, to my mind, without these formal objections and resolve the issue, especially since so much time, because of these incidents, has been paralyzed since the processing of principal record, as the profusion of decisions that have been issued about the case by different courts (Bugs: 298:72, 303:328 and 306:2000).
In this regard I refer wing views and supported from the eighth paragraph of my opinion obrante to fs. 85/86, whose contents I played here for the benefit of brevity.
exposed to the basics then I added that the training requirement obrante fs. 580/593 of the principal record, which only this time I have to look at, and complaint is made against Dr. Roberto Dromi and Mario Caserta for their involvement in the events as Minister of Works and Public Utilities and the first Director of Water Resources , Water Supply and Sanitation for the Nation, the second wing then the expansion of fs. 753 / 766, it is precisely in order to crimes of fraud against the government and abuse of authority in perfect competition. Subsequently, fs. 1655, the magistrate ordered intervening receive the disclosure statement prior to appointment.
The fact, again, that the fiscal authority has concluded, in that extension, that the activity was attributed to them, in their view, a single event along with other conduct research, and that it would have taken place in his capacity of national officials and to mark the proper exercise of his functions, determining the jurisdiction of federal courts in the capital, being in this city where those observing acts of formal reason, without prejudice, of course, whichever is the later investigation (Bugs: 306:1681, 307:76 and 1340).
In this regard I think it is for resolving the dispute had arisen between the Second Division of the National Chamber of Appeals in Federal Criminal and magistrate N2 4 of Catamarca.
Buenos Aires, June 25, 1996. Angel Nicolás Agüero
lturbe.
JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
Buenos Aires, December 27, 1996. The file and Whereas:
1) The December 19, 1995, this Court resolved the dispute between the Federal Court of Catamarca and the Magistrate's Court in the 4th. Nomination of the province, which had originated-do due to the presentation of inhibitory promoted by Jose Roberto Dromi before the courts of exception (pages 88/89).
In this regard, the Court decided, first, to send the case to the court, the federal judge, in response to the lack of formal requirements that impeded the substantive resolution of the conflict, especially in those cars had been previously verified identical jurisdictional dispute but then invoke new circumstances which allow for its stake.
2) that returned these actions to federal court, the defense of another defendant, Mario Caserta, asked the owner to give a new speech to the Supreme Court. Said, after a review of the factual circumstances surrounding his participation in the events under investigation, the jurisdiction of courts of exception, under the provisions of the Economic Emergency Law (pages 93 / 100), referred to the judge did place, so he sent again actions to this Court (pages 109).
3) that, first, one must emphasize that the national court failed to comply with the orders in the previous resolution of this Court, so it must make a serious wake up call.
To this must be added that the federal judge merely considered "prudent decision of" the remission of these actions without promoting a jurisdictional necessary to enable the intervention of the High Court. However, reasons for better administration of justice the authority to waive procedural objections and resolve the underlying issue without further delay.
4) That the present proceedings originated on the occasion of the presentation that the State Attorney of the Province of Catamarca, Sesto Amelia Lewis, had raised before the local courts following the 2035/90 national decree by which the National Executive had approved the agreement signed between the Ministry of Public Works and Services and the province for financial assistance through the Department of Water Resources, Water Supply and Sanitation Office, thus allowing the transfer of funds from national government to the province for the implementation of the West Building Ground Maximum Collector's V ~ Nita Capital (pages 2 / 14 and 580/593, formal instruction-).
5) Which of these records shows that Jose Roberto Dromi and Mario Caserta subscribed in his official capacity by national agencies referred to in the preceding paragraph, the said Convention. As a result, the named defendants in the case are as responsible for crimes under arts. 248, 174, inc. 52, according to art. 173, inc. 72 of the Criminal Code ideal contest for having authorized thereby sending funds for the completion of that work, knowing that he is-do emergency sewer raised by the province through a provincial decree was not such.
6) That, in this sense, the Court shares and endorses the grounds for the opinion of the Attorney General to the extent that the alleged involvement of the accused, in his capacity of national public officials and within the scope of this capital, are circumstances that determine, in principle, the jurisdiction of the courts of exception based in that city, without prejudice resulting from further investigation.
Therefore, we agree and ruled by Mr. Attorney General, to refer these actions corresponds to the National Criminal Court and Federal Correctional N2 12. Get to know the owner of the Federal Court of Catamarca, as decided in paragraph 32 and contact the Magistrate's Court in the 4th. Nomination based in that city, with a copy of this letter. JULY
S. NAZARETH, Eduardo Molina O'CONNOR (according to my vote) - CARLOS S. F AYT-Augusto Cesar Belluscio, ENRIQUE ANTONIO SANTIAGO Petracchi-BOGGIANO-GUSTAVO A. ROBERTO VAZQUEZ, ADOLFO BOSSERT. VOTE OF VICE LORD
DOCTOR DON EDUARDO Moline O'Connor Car
Views:
For the reasons and conclusions of the opinion of the Attorney General, to which reference is made in the sake of brevity, states that will hear the case in that led to this incident the National Criminal Court and Federal Correctional NQ 12, which will be sent. Let it be known to the Magistrate's Court in the 4th. Nomination of Catamarca Province.
Eduardo Moline O'Connor.
0 comments:
Post a Comment