The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

While the Supreme Court was meeting, the Chamber raffled who will vote to resolve the situation of Bruglia and Bertuzzi

2020-09-29T15:44:39.677Z


Judge Clara Do Pico must tie the tie after the two magistrates of the Chamber in Administrative Litigation have voted differently.


Lucia Salinas

09/29/2020 - 12:37

  • Clarín.com

  • Politics

Judge

Clara Do Pico

will be the one to tie the breaker and define this Tuesday whether to accept or reject the protection of the chambermaids

Leopoldo Bruglia and Pablo Bertuzzi

, who had presented this appeal to avoid losing their positions in the Federal Chamber, where they had arrived due to willing transfers during the government of Mauricio Macri.

Do Pico was bypassed after, due to lack of agreement, the two judges of the

Federal Administrative Litigation Chamber

requested that a third magistrate be appointed who could tie the tie, while the Court is already discussing the parallel request for per saltum to define the case in that court.

In a letter, the chambermaids Guillermo Treacy and Jorge Alemany requested this Monday that a third judge be appointed to integrate the Chamber in order to reach a decision.

The other member of the Chamber, Pablo Gallegos Frediani, had excused himself from understanding the case

because he himself is a transferred judge.

Previously, the prosecutor of the Chamber, Rodrigo Cuesta, had opposed validating Bruglia and Bertuzzi's appeal for amparo against the decision to displace them, with which the decision was left in the hands of the chambermaids Treacy and Alemany, who have opposing opinions on the request made by the magistrates.

That is why a third judge from that body had to be bypassed, and Dr. Do Pico was selected.

With the postponement of the definition by the Chamber, the Court is empowered to advance in the resolution of the

per saltum

that Bruglia and Bertuzzi raised to stop their transfers.

The president of the highest court, Carlos Rosenkrantz, had called for an extraordinary agreement.

It is anyone's guess what the Supreme Court will define, but it could range from rejecting the

per saltum

, just admit it but without treating it right away or already solving it

endorsing or canceling transfers.

If the Chamber had ruled before the Court, the appeal for

per saltum

would have become abstract and the highest court would not have to rule on it.

In the opinion of the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office it was stated that despite the fact that Congress approved the removal of the judges, a measure that was completed administratively with the Executive Power Decree, "the appellants have not shown that the only act effectively questioned within the framework of this amparo action

it generates a concrete, direct and immediate damage to

their sphere of rights ".

From the beginning, with different writings, both Bruglia, Bertuzzi and Castelli questioned the decision of the Council of the Magistracy dated July 15, to review ten transfers of magistrates made during the macrista administration and that

would not have fulfilled all of the requirements

.

This resulted in the debate in the Senate and finally, the resolution of the Government.

Given this scenario, and given the delay of the Chamber in Litigation to resolve their appeals, the judges

went to the Supreme Court

demanding the nullity of all the procedures carried out and that concluded with the determination that they return to the positions they held until 2018 .

For the prosecutor Cuesta, the procedure of the Council of the Magistracy only "was limited to considering that the transfer procedure previously initiated had not been perfected, without affecting the acts previously dictated in its sphere of intervention."

It maintained that all instances were communicated to both the Executive Power and the Court.

Along the same lines, he expressed that

the constitutional guarantee of tenure

that judges have

was not put at risk

, and that finally the decisions adopted by Congress and by the Casa Rosada are outside their orbit.

"From the foregoing, it follows that

the procedure for transferring the actors required a new agreement from the National Senate

to be considered perfected," said Cuesta and thus dismissed the appeal.

The prosecutor's resolution is politically timely: today, in an extraordinary agreement,

the Court will address the

per saltum

of the three judges

, who indicated that the "damage" against them "has already been committed" - that had been the reason why the A judge of first instance rejected in amparo at the time - and that in this sense the highest court would be in a position to be issued. 

As members of Chamber I of the Buenos Aires Federal Chamber (responsible for reviewing the decisions of the investigating judges), Bruglia and Bertuzzi confirmed the prosecutions of Cristina Kirchner and other Kirchner officials in the case of the Cuadernos de las Bribes.

Meanwhile, Germán Castelli is a member of the Federal Oral Court 7, where the oral stage of the same investigation will take place.

Kirchnerism put into discussion the transfer of ten judges that were specified during the administration of Mauricio Macri.

In the Senate, so far, only progress has been made on the removal of these three magistrates.

As

Clarín said

,

since 1995 there have been at least 65 movements of judges

, 23 of them were during the governments of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, and

none of them passed through the Senate.

Of these universes of transfers, 22 were during the administration of Cambiemos.

The remaining ones occurred when Carlos Menem was in charge of the Casa Rosada and to a lesser extent, during the administration of Fernando De la Rúa. 

Look also

Ricardo Lorenzetti and Horacio Rosatti traveled from Santa Fe to participate in the key meeting of the Court

Vigil in Courts before the Supreme Court's decision on the judges that tries to displace Kirchnerism

Source: clarin

All news articles on 2020-09-29

You may like

News/Politics 2024-02-08T05:16:42.398Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.