Civil Court 66, headed by Judge Christian Ricardo Pettis, considered that the IGJ resolution that suspended the AFA assembly is not yet final.
civil justice issued a ruling that enables the assembly that the AFA was going to hold this Thursdayamong other issues, to ensure the continuity of Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia at the head of the entity, and against which administrative decision that had attempted to suspend it by the General Inspection of Justice, against the backdrop of the Government’s fight against Tapia by the SAD.
In four pages, Judge Christian Pettis first observed that the resolution to suspend the IGJ was not to the assembly itself, but to “certain points” of the planned agenda. Then, he analyzed the AFA request that denounced as a “new fact” what was attempted by the body that depends on the Ministry of Justice and that required clarity about its finality, given that there are fifteen days to appeal to the civil court and that its effects would be suspensive. , in any case.
For the magistrate, who referred to what was said on October 9, The declaratory action cannot be admitted because “no resolution becomes final until the period provided for in the regulations to appeal it has expired.”. That is to say, there is no doubt about this procedure and therefore, justice is prevented from acting, which ratifies the AFA’s claim for the negative: the IGJ’s claim is not firm.
Pettis went further and recalled what are the procedures by which the provisions of the IGJ can be appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, the court that must determine the effects with which it grants the appeal. And he clarified that the IGJ must “limit itself” to referring the proceedings to justice. “Assuming otherwise would mean allowing the aforementioned administrative body to become judge and party in the same matter,” he shot. During the day, main figures in Javier Milei’s cabinet had mentioned the possibility that the AFA would be intervened if it ignored the IGJ’s limitation. That would open another scenario: sanctioning measures by international football organizations.
The judge warned that it will be the Chamber that will rule on the issue of the effect with which the appeal will be granted.
“The issuance of the IGJ resolution now invoked does not modify the picture of the situation that led me to decide in the sense that I already did in the record, nor does it enable my action with the intended scope, without it being noted in this state the existence of danger of damage or aggravation that justifies, under the terms of article 1710 of the Civil and Commercial Code, the issuance of the self-satisfactory measure that had been requested,” he concluded.
Source: Ambito
