says that this suspension “does not generate irreversible legal effects” or “serious disturbance to a constitutionally protected interest”
MADRID, 30 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Constitutional Court (TC) has responded to the Senate’s appeal against the parliamentary suspension of several amendments that its allegations “do not distort the reasons for which this precautionary measure was adopted.” This decision, which was made known on December 21 and of which the order has emerged today, gave the green light to the legislative paralysis of the provisions referring to the renewal of the court itself.
In this brief resolution, which has the individual votes of the progressive magistrates, the Plenary of the guarantee court reviews the reasons put forward by the Upper House and rejects both lifting that suspension measure and the recusal of certain magistrates to hear the matter –Pedro González-Trevijano and Antonio Narváez– considering that “they have no direct or indirect interest.”
In the order, which refers to the reasoning already given in the previous order that came out this Thursday on the same matter, they add that this suspension “does not generate irreversible legal effects” nor a “serious disturbance to a constitutionally protected interest, nor to the fundamental rights or freedoms of third parties”. PARTICULAR VOTES
On this occasion, the individual vote of Vice President Juan Antonio Xiol refers to his arguments put forward against the first order, that is to say that the decision to paralyze a parliamentary process in the Cortes Generales “means putting at risk the balance of constituted powers designed by the Constitution”.
For his part, magistrate Cándido Conde-Pumpido signs his vote with Ramón Sáez Valcarcel and Inmaculada Montabán and insists that, as in the first decision on the suspension, magistrates González-trevijano and Narváez should have been challenged to hear of the appeal of the Senate.
In addition, they indicate that this new order leaves the questions raised unanswered because it offers “a generic response and by referral” to a previous order, that of December 19 regarding issues that have “a substantial nature” such as the need to process an incident of recusal.
They insist that the precautionary suspension should have been lifted since “the requirements derived from the law” regulated by the court have not been met.
“A measure adopted without precedent in the more than 40 years of life of the Constitutional Court, but which creates a dangerous precedent in that it alters the jurisdiction model (…) and calls into question the independence and inviolability of the legislative power,” they conclude. .
Lastly, magistrate María Luisa Balaguer refers to what was defended in her last dissenting opinion and insists that the PP’s appeal for protection – which requested the precautionary suspension – should have been inadmissible.
