This was the backlash devised by the highest court to the rebellion of all national justice after the so -called “Levinas” ruling. There was a succession of plenary, in these last weeks, where the cameramen called to ignore the resolved by the Court on December 27 that submitted them to the Porteño TSJ and that, they understand, it is a form of covert transfer to the orbit of The City of Buenos Aires.
At the same time, the Court with the signing of its three members, declared the revocation proposals of that sentence inadmissible that they had tried both the Association of Magistrates that Andrés Basso leads, and the approach of the General Defensoría of the Nation directed by Stella Maris Martínez. As already reported Scopethat was the strategy of the judges to resist and avoid having to send the extraordinary resources to the TSJ, arguing that the Court’s ruling had legislated a procedure that was not provided for in the current codes. And that also generated an extension of the deadlines for those who had litigation because it added an instance where there was not before.
In detail, in December 2024, the Court had failed to enable the Superior Court of Justice of the City as an organ responsible for resolving extraordinary resources filed against sentences of national justice. For the highest court, the precaution of the parties and directly affecting the community”
That precautionary had been granted by the federal administrative jurisdiction and had been ratified by the Chamber of the “Jurisdiction of Governance.” He even had a judgment of first instance on the fund of the issue that declared unconstitutional the Buenos Aires law that forced the national courts to go to the TSJ. Without waiting for the final tour, LA Court considered that he was in a position to decide on a “complaint appeal” that the city government had promoted and amputated the development of that cause. A clear sign with which they point to undermine the attempt to rebellion from national judges. And sustain the authority that their failures are mandatory. That explains the signature of Carlos Rosenkrantz whose vote had been totally opposed to that of his colleagues and in the background coincided with the proposals of the national judges.
The Association of Magistrates and the General Ombudsman responded basically in a paragraph: “The proposal is in any way inadmissible because, as this Court has repeatedly decided, its final and interlocutory sentences are not likely to be modified by the appeal of revocation , nor for the nullity, except exceptional situations that do not concur in the species. ” Thus, he labeled them inadmissible.
The Decision of the Supreme Court on the precautionary
In October 2021, the Buenos Aires legislature modified a Article of Law 402 of the City of Buenos Aires (text according to Law 6452) and enabled the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) to understand in the appeal for unconstitutionality filed against decisions of the National Chamber of Appeals with Seat in the City of Buenos Aires.
Given this, the Association of Magistrates and officials of the National Justice and other entities such as Civil Association People of Law, the Public Bar Association of the Federal Capital and the Association of Prosecutors and Officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Nation They went to justice to request the suspension and unconstitutionality of that article. The argument was that the Buenos Aires law violates the structure of the Judicial Power of the Nation that can only be modified by the National Congress.
In this sense, the proposals claimed that the norm violated the forecasts of articles 75, subsection 20, and 117 of the National Constitution; 1 and 32 of Decree-Law 1285/1958; 14 and 15 of Law 48; 256 and 257 of the Procedural Code; and 8 of Law 24,588.
On the bottom of the matter, after unifying all the demands and running transfer to the national state, which also questioned the Buenos Aires legislation, the judge ruled in May 2024: she decreed the unconstitutionality of the norm. The city government appealed. That decision was not yet reviewed by the chamber in the contentious.
In this context, The Court analyzed the complaint appeal imposed by the GCABA in the incident of appeal of the precautionary measure. And he pointed out that “although the resolutions that decree precautionary measures, in principle, in principle, the final sentence or comparable to it for art. 14 of Law 48 ”, it is possible to obviate“ this requirement when the decreed measure causes a grievance that, due to its magnitude or circumstances of fact, its subsequent repair may be, in the light of the process in question, late, insufficient or impossible ”.
“This Court has said that every subject who intends the anticipated guardianship from a precautionary measure must prove the existence of likelihood in the right invoked. And the irreparable danger in the delaysince it is enforceable that the reasons that justify resolutions of that nature be evidenced, ”said the magistrates.
In addition, from the highest court they stressed that “when it is in the presence of a collective precautionary measure that has expansive effects it results essential to accentuate the appreciation of the required legal parameters For its origin since, the guarantees of due process and equality before the law are particularly compromised ”.
On the accusation of delay, from the Court they explained that “the plaintiff associates its opposition to the provisions of article 4 of Local Law 6452, but does not accredit – with the forcefulness required by the granting a measure of the nature of the requested– What would, this time, the right or personal, individual or collective interest, of the subjects representing that He would be affected by not granting the precautionary guardianship in question. “
On this point, they detailed that this “does not involve advancing an opinion regarding the validity or disability of that local norm, an issue that is in debate before the courts of the case and that will eventually be a matter of decision in the appropriate instance.”
The Levinas failure
To the edge of the judicial fair and on the last day of Juan Carlos Maqueda in the Supreme Courton December 19, The so -called “Levinas” failure was signed, expected because the way back up so that the Superior Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Be a kind of reviewer of the sentences of ordinary national justice.
“Levinas” is linked to the precedents “Corrales”, “Bazán” and “Nisman” that were sentences that had the same majority and that they underpin the idea that in the Federal Capitaland prior to cases climb to the Supreme Court, The Porteño TSJ has the power to review the sentences issued by the National Justice Appeals Chambers. This was widely resisted by the judges of the so -called ordinary justice because it submitted them to the review of an intermediate body, of local incidence.
If this failure has a particularity, it cannot be read linearly. With the departure of Maqueda, the majority that integrated the precedents and this failure disappears, which does not mean that it is sought to make it extendable to the mail case. The conclusion of the Supreme Court is that “superior“Of the ordinary justice of Federal Capital is the TSJ.
This represents a blow to the large number of magistrates who resist what they understand as a kind of Forced transfer to the Buenos Aires orbitplacing above the decisions of the cameramen to the TSJ that is local.
The Court analyzed that there is “An anomalous situation in the city of Buenos Aireswhere still local and national justice coexist With ordinary competence (civil, commercial, labor and criminal), despite the provisions of article 129 of the National Constitution that guarantees local autonomy, in the Constitution of the City of Buenos Aires and the commitments assumed by the legislative authorities national and local to transfer the judicial powers. “The highest court stated that” thirty years after the reform of the National Constitution, twenty -eight of the sanction of the Buenos Aires Constitution, nine from Corrales, seven from the signing of the last agreement- which already shows a stagnated political process- and five of the ‘Bazán’ ruling, the ‘immobility‘”
But in a relevant paragraph, The Court clarified that the resolution does not affect the transitory continuity of national justice ordinary within the structure of the Judicial Power of the Nation until the transfer is made, but decided that this new jurisprudence will be applied to the “cases pending decision in which an analogous conflict had already been raised already the appeals against sentences of national chambers (…) that were notified after this ruling ”and urged the competent authorities to adopt the necessary measures to adapt the laws corresponding to the constitutional mandate. The Argentine Correo case integrates that package.
Source: Ambito
I’m a recent graduate of the University of Missouri with a degree in journalism. I started working as a news reporter for 24 Hours World about two years ago, and I’ve been writing articles ever since. My main focus is automotive news, but I’ve also written about politics, lifestyle, and entertainment.
