The Minister of the Presidency, Félix Bolaños (on the right) after his speech in the debate this Thursday in Congress on the amendments to the entire bill to amend the National Security Law.
On the left, the Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska.ZIPI (EFE)
If Madrid were to be paralyzed for weeks by a heavy snowfall (it is a guess) and the situation reached the point of causing shortages, inability to access hospitals or maintain basic services and you were the owner of a 4x4, the authorities -prior declaration of the situation as “of interest to national security”—they could seize the vehicle as long as they compensated him financially for the damage caused.
However, if there were no driver available and the authorities forced you to drive it yourself, on exhausting days and with the risk of driving through a collapsed city, you would not be entitled to receive any compensation for it.
More information
The Government saves the national security law and four other regulations despite the rejection of ERC
According to the bill to modify the National Security Law, which this Thursday began its journey in Congress after rejecting the amendments to the entirety presented by ERC and Junts per Catalunya, "in cases of situation of interest for National Security [i.e., in cases of serious crisis or emergency, such as a pandemic, a volcanic eruption or a war], any person, from the age of majority, will be obliged to carry out the personal services required by the competent authorities , without the right to compensation for this cause, and to comply with the orders and instructions, general or particular, that they establish.
In these same cases, "the competent authorities [also] may order the temporary requisition of all types of goods, as well as the temporary intervention or occupation of those that are necessary and, where appropriate, the suspension of activities."
However, "those who suffer property damage as a result of these actions will have the right to be compensated."
It is understood that, in the event of an emergency, all the resources of society, public and private, are placed at the service of the general interest.
What is not understood is that the State feels obliged to compensate for the use of material goods and not for the provision of personal benefits.
It responds to an anachronistic and narrow conception of the right to property to consider that the objects that one possesses are always valuable while personal work lacks any value.
In order to maintain the text of the project, despite the warning already made by the Council of State, the Government argues that this precept is an almost verbatim reproduction of the Civil Protection Law of 2015, but the fact that a current regulation contains an inconsistency it does not oblige to reproduce it in each new norm but, in any case, to correct it as soon as possible.
The parliamentary process, thanks to the support of the PP, is a good opportunity to correct this aspect and improve others of no less importance.
For example, parliamentary control.
According to current law, the “situation of interest for National Security” is declared by the president through a royal decree, with the sole requirement of “immediately informing [the Courts] of the measures adopted and the evolution of the situation”;
that is, there is no obligation for Congress to approve it, unlike the state of alarm, which cannot last more than 15 days without parliamentary approval.
It is argued that this article is not changed in the reform proposed by the Government, but this regulation was consistent with the fact that, according to current law, the decree could not include measures that involve the "suspension of fundamental rights" of citizens. .
It is debatable, however, whether the reform, by providing for compulsory and free personal benefits, does not affect fundamental rights.
Exclusive content for subscribers
read without limits
subscribe
I'm already a subscriber