The ruling of the Fair Chamber of the Chamber of Labor that rejected the validity of filing an extraordinary appeal through the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ), was only the spearhead of a rebellion that has been brewing since the end of the year and that was perfected throughout the January Fair, which culminates today. A battery of actions of national judges – called “ordinary” – will be deployed from next week, with epicenter on Monday, with a meeting of presidents of national cameras and when a presentation of the Association of Magistrates and Officials will be made public of the National Justice (AMFJN) before the Court itself. The next day, in the civil jurisdiction they will plan a plenary date where they will adopt a definition.
The first step was taken by the Attorney General with an order to the Supreme Court, but this Monday will begin the strategy: all the presidents of the national chambers will be found. Therefore, several cameramen confirmed Scope that they will meet – first those of the civil jurisdiction, from where the Levinas ruling left – to define the scope of the plenary in which the “absolute inapplicability” of the ruling of the highest court, in the future, will use as an argument. They will consider that it is not only inapplicable for other “similar” cases, but there is no formal transfer – acted by Congress, among other requirements – and that no appeal is legislated that enables what the Court said in its sentence. The other cameras await the result of the plenary to join, each in their respective jurisdiction. I know that will be discussed on Monday, for the waterfall effect.
Meanwhile, the judges also confirmed to this media that since The Association of Magistrates will ask for a revocation and suspension of the application of the Court’s ruling. There is a draft that began to be designed and was preceded by several meetings and efforts that extended the entire fair.
This Friday, the general prosecutor of the nation that leads Eduardo Casal made his position public and chopped in Punta to ask that it is the Supreme Court itself that suspends its decision in the controversial ruling at the end of last year, which had the signature of Juan Carlos Maqueda to form the majority, hours before he left his position after reaching the age limit planned to continue in the highest court. In mid -January, This media could know that Casal met with several national cameramen but did not offer them high hopes. Something changed. Everything is part of the same combo and in court the majority that sealed the fate of this transfer no longer: Horacio Rosatti and Ricardo Lorenzetti voted alongside Maqueda; Carlos Rosenkrantz opposed. Today, with three members, they are two against one if you had to submit a vote again.
THE POSITION OF THE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION
The Association of Magistrates and officials of the National Justice that Andrés Basso is directly impacted under the effects of what the Supreme Court decided because most of its affiliates consider that the background of the decision seeks to leave them subsumed to the authority of the TSJ that is a local court, and whose ancestry is, in political terms, defined by the PRO. Basso had already summoned the presidents of the national chambers on the last day of the year with perfect assistance and then a joint statement arose in which it was agreed that all the possible efforts would be made by the AMFJN and that there would be a presentation before the Court by the entity.
Within that framework, there were key meetings during the first days of January between Basso and Casal, on the one hand; and between Basso and Stella Maris Martínez, General Defender of the Nation. It was agreed to raise “papers” where the operational inconveniences and problems that would begin to arise from Monday were described, when the activity is resumed and the instance of the TSJ becomes “operational”. These documents nurtured the drafts that are ending up delineating for the presentation of the association on Monday, on the fourth floor of the court of court.
According to the draft that can have modifications and aggregates from here until the idea is presented is to request the “Revocation and request for suspension of the effects of the decision of that Court, dated December 27, 2024”. It would be “extensive” to all the causes that were resolved on the same date and in which the Court gave similar instruction. This includes the Argentine email case that impacts – from the commercial jurisdiction – in the possible extension of bankruptcy to the family of former President Mauricio Macri.
The association declared its effective legitimacy to act by its representatives and by “affect the due provision of the justice service, which entails institutional gravity.” Centrally, it is established that there was no law of Congress that regulates neither the transfer nor the process to modify the path of an extraordinary resource, which had appeared as a fundamental reason at the end of the year.
But they recognize other gaps caused by the Levinas ruling according to the constitutional design that CABA possesses and in the powers it possesses in front of the powers of the Nation, while it is the capital of the Argentine Republic, beyond its status of the federated constitutional city. In fact, they point out that the TSJ does not integrate the same Judiciary as the National Justice. It operates in the same district but organically is different. And they point to a legal key: the Buenos Aires Judiciary does not exercise ordinary powers because it has it excluded by article 8 of Law 24,588
The association’s strategy also leaves an interesting scenario in the short term: To raise the revocation of the Court itself on its decision, you need to treat it. Generally, these proposals have a fate of rejection, but there is no longer a majority that can reject it flat that would be the same signatories. Now, all three members should agree to reject it, including Rosenkrantz who gave similar arguments to those raised by the judges.
But The key is in the suspension. From the AMFJN they also maintained contacts with the Supreme Court that was willing to listen to arguments. Would it mean that the Court would turn back with a sentence? Unlikely. But the creative path of a suspension until different conditions were given or exhort the political powers to make the reforms that would return it would be a tacit way of suspending the scope of the ruling, Without retreating. As he was able to rebuild scope, some of this was floating in the air.
The background of the problem
As already advanced, in addition to the argument of the “municipalization” that they use as a symbolic objection, national judges are elected by the Council of the Magistracy of the Nation, as is the case with federal judges.
The Court had already given indications that its doctrine is that the extraordinary resources that occurred within the district should be intermediated by the Local Superior Court, as in the provinces. The particularity of the City of Buenos Aires is that three judicial instances coexist: a purely local that hangs below the TSJ, the National and Federal Justice. The tension has been crawling for years, while the city struggles for the transfer that would multiply it in terms of power, from the opposite path they argue that it is directly unconstitutional.
There were two judicial actions that the AMFJN filed under the radar with the aim of curbing Buenos Aires initiatives with precautionary measures: One was the creation – adlated by the scope – of ten labor courts, creating a jurisdiction of local work, taking advantage of the fact that there were identical vacancies in national justice; And the other, the provision of a special budget item to address issues of Porteños Family Courts, something that has identical function in the National Courts. Both fell on the strategic federal administrative jurisdiction and their fate will begin to roll from next week.
Source: Ambito
