The Constitutional Progressive Sector has received with concern a decision of the Supreme Court that inadmits a complaint against them but does so, consider in that faction of the Court of Guarantees, going beyond what the law allows to analyze its judicial resolutions. The Criminal Chamber, as Eldiario.es revealed, rejected a Vox complaint and do against the progressive magistrates of the Constitutional and valued that their sentences in the case of the ERE of Andalusia had not been prevaricators. In the Constitutional they do not hide their discomfort with a decision that, although correct in the ruling, opens the door to something that prohibits the law: that the decisions of the court are prosecuted.
The case of the ERE of Andalusia has become the greatest friction point between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in recent years. The constitutional sentences that annulled a good part of the convictions of the Andalusian politicians did not like in the Supreme Criminal Chamber, where many magistrates consider that the Court of Guarantees had gone beyond their functions. Everything were unofficial pronouncements without signature until two Vox and Hazteoir complaints arrived accusing the constitutional sector of prevaricating in their decisions about the case of the ERE.
The Supreme did the same thing he has done with each and every one of the complaints and complaints that the Santiago Abascal party and the ultra -Catholic organization have presented in recent years: inadmissible it. But it was the first of these criminal actions that was directed against the magistrates of the Constitutional to prevail in one of its sentences. And the inadmissibility car, in addition to making it clear that there was no crime in the Court’s decisions about the ERE of Andalusia, also addressed the issue that is now on the verge of producing an unpublished trains clash between the two courts: if It may or may not assess the constitutional decision to inadmit the complaint.
The Constitutional Court Law He explains that his resolutions “may not be prosecuted by any jurisdictional body of the State.” And the supreme car revealed by eldiaria.es that rejected the vox and hazteair complaint a kind of inviolability of constitutional members in the exercise of their functions; As could be derived from eventual infidelity in the custody of documents, revelation of secrets, bribery, influence peddling … ”, explained the supreme.
The constitutional sentences, the Supreme recognized, are “legally excluded from the jurisdictional prosecution” alerting that “does not imply the granting of the Blanca Carta to the Constitutional Court to resolve without legally sticking to the issue, but it does narrow the contours in which it can develop the exam. ” With the support of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme did not close the door to this possibility of criminally investigating the Constitutional if it exceeds “mere illegality and contradiction with the right”.
Different sources from the progressive sector of the Constitutional Court are openly annoying with this car. They understand that these complaints of the extreme right are correctly rejected and that there was no basis to admit them to process, but they also understand that the Supreme Court has gone far beyond what the law allows when examining their sentences of the ERE of Andalusia to judge whether or not they were prevailing when the law expressly states that their resolutions “may not be prosecuted by any jurisdictional body of the State.”
These sources show their concern to understand that, with that car, the Supreme Court arrogues the power to prosecute their sentences when the law prohibits it. This precept was included in the Constitutional Law In 2007shortly after one of the great conflicts between both courts when the Supreme condemned by the civil via To 11 constitutional magistrates To pay a euro for not motivating an inadmissibility car. The constitutional response, almost ten years later, was cancel that condemnation.
The Supreme decision has already been circulating for days among the members of the Constitutional with some of them exposing the possibility of reacting in some way. On the table, although with little chances of activating, there is the mechanism of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court that allows the Plenary to “cancel an act or resolution that contravenes” judicial decisions that prosecute decisions of the Court of Guarantees, something expressly prohibited in the same law.
#Discomfort #Constitutional #supreme #car #hints #possibility #criminally #investigating #magistrates
