The Constitutional Court will process a CSIF appeal to debate in Congress that officials recover their extra pay

The Constitutional Court has accepted for processing an appeal for protection presented by the Independent Trade Union and Civil Servants Central (CSIF) against the decision of the Board of the Congress of Deputies to reject the processing of a Popular Legislative Initiative so that public employees recover the full payments since 2010. The first chamber considers that “there is a special constitutional significance, because the matter raised transcends the specific case and could have political consequences.” general”.

The appeal for protection presented by the union headed by Miguel Borra, to which Europa Press has had access, requests the Constitutional Court to declare null and void the agreement reached by the Board of the Congress of Deputies, because it violates article 23.1, which allows citizens to participate in public affairs and lacks “sufficient and adequate motivation.”

According to the document, the Board of the Congress of Deputies agreed on May 16, 2023 not to admit an ILP for processing so that public employees recover full pay since 2010 because it did not comply with the law that regulates popular legislative initiatives. to the extent that it affects budgetary matters.” From the union, they defend that this “alleged” impact on budgetary matters is not one of the specific causes assessed and foreseen for the inadmissibility of the proposal and, in addition, they assure that said impact does not occur.

In this way, it indicates that any popular legislative initiative and its processing will always entail some management expense, but that it is “minimal” and cannot be equated to an invasion of government powers in terms of budgeting, as “it seems make” the inadmissibility agreement adopted by the Congress Board. “If this equation is accepted between the cost of the initiative and the Government’s material reserve for the preparation of the General State Budgets, this form of citizen participation would be emptied of its content,” the union warns.

Likewise, CSIF states that the initiative presented does not include any proposal on the preparation of the Budgets, or direct costs for these concepts, but only proposes a regulatory suppression – article 1 of Royal Decree Law 8/2010, of 20 of May—and negotiate it within the General Board of Public Administrations.

Along these lines, they recall that the Congress Board has admitted other initiatives that involved greater spending and could mean a greater budgetary impact than the initiative presented. Likewise, in the appeal for protection presented by CSIF it is ensured that the resolution of the Congressional agreement that is being appealed does not contain the “express, sufficient and adequate” motivation. For this reason, they ask the Constitutional Court to declare that the proposal has not incurred any of the established causes of inadmissibility or to alternatively declare the agreement of the Congressional table null and void.