Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Litigation helps the Government and lets the fair pass with a large part of the DNU in force


Except for the labor chapter stopped (and shielded) by the Labor Justice, the governance jurisdiction rejected the two most advanced protections. Absence of legitimation and “case”, the arguments, as Ámbito advanced. Signal for the Executive to buy oxygen until February.

Rodolfo Barra

The powerful force Federal Administrative Litigation He showed his cards, almost biting the last leg of the judicial fair. In a triplet of resolutions released in the thread, first cleared the way for the National Labor Justice to advance in a total invalidation of the labor chapter of the DNU by Javier Milei. But almost simultaneously, He rejected two protections – on the merits of the matter – in the cases in which he had been doing “dribbling” and that had been cut from the rest: “Rizzo” and “Observatorio”the first to be filed against the mega decree and that knew how to cherish the status of collective action. This point means a strong endorsement for the strategy of the Government headed by Rodolfo Barra, the Treasury Attorney.

Barra is, above all, a lawyer; He does not need to be right but rather achieve the objective of his client. If this panorama consolidates, The Executive will arrive in February leaving only a piece of the DNU on the road and with the rest fully operational until the matter is fully resolved by the Supreme Court.

Sergio Fernandez and Carlos Grecco They not only validated that the Contentious don’t follow the strategy “Furnari” of great collective protection, but now rejection the inhibitory that he Government had tried at the beginning of the month to make the whole case CGT be absorbed by the jurisdiction of governance. It was free: He considered it “inoffitious” to respond to that request because the collective action had already been disarmed, in a resolution that was signed at 10:49 a.m. For those who resist DNU For reasons of form and substance, it is good news because it leaves this file protected so that the Labor Justice block it, not with precautionary measures as it did, but in a substantive resolution that labels as unconstitutional that series of reforms that the Government included in the decree. That package was already advancing by separate rope towards the Court. From the moment that the same Chamber had played in tandem with Judge Enrique Lavié Pico to validate that it was not processed as a collective action, that path had been clear. The prohibition that the Government proposed was for something that no longer existed.

But the signal to observe occurred in the files that were already “ripe” in the Litigation and ready – at least in the first instance – for a substantive definition. There, in separate resolutions, Lavié Pico rejected the protections based on what Scope had anticipated on Monday past: the existence of a “case” and the “legitimization” of the plaintiffs to take actiontwo unavoidable technical issues in the protections that were going to be revealed in this instance, beyond the political noise generated by the DNU.

“It is imperative, then, that the party demonstrate the existence of a ‘special interest’ in the process, or that the alleged grievances affect it in a ‘sufficiently direct’, or ‘substantial’ way, that is, that they have ‘sufficient concreteness and immediacy.’ ‘to be able to pursue this process,’ Lavié Pico summarized. the axis of the legal discussion that emerged for the “Observatory” case, with criticism of the interpretation that the legitimation could be expanded until it was justified without the existence of a specific case of affectation. And he returned to the identity of the association which, in his opinion, was unable to identify its representativeness or the equal impact of its alleged constituents.

“It is not up to the Judiciary to make abstract statements because it is of its essence to decide effective collisions of rights,” he concluded. remembering that it was the cause that began, even before the entry into force of the DNU. Without a case, there is no cause, according to what the judge analyzed. The generic claim does not constitute sufficient motivation to challenge through amparo. One of the last points is a direct nod towards the legal powers of the Executive Branch and that its “Primary” constitutional control corresponds to Congress of the Nation as an ideal way. It is an explicit message. As much as the one that closes the ruling: “Notwithstanding what was stated above, taking into account the issue that is debated here, it should be stated that what is resolved here does not prevent the parties from being able, where appropriate, to prove damage.” specifically in relation to any of the matters regulated by the decree in question and, consequently, promote before the competent jurisdictions the actions that are considered pertinent, to enforce their rights. What is no today, could be yes tomorrow. The second message.

for the cause “Rizzo” promoted by the owner of the People of Law Grouplawyer Jorge Rizzo, with experience in having achieved resounding failures. But in the argument almost all the development is repeated in the previous file with the exception that Lavié Pico considered that his representativeness “is not capable of trying to represent all the lawyers and/or all the inhabitants of the Nation.” He again mentioned the non-existence of a case and that “the legitimacy invoked by the plaintiff is not sufficient – in this case – by itself to admit an action that seeks to control the mere legality of a provision.” Despite some details, both rulings are almost a carbon copy. Lavie Peak I signed the Rizzo case at 11:11 and the “Observatorio” case at the same 11:11.

It is unnecessary to mention that the best projection of the most advanced cases to an eventual appeal before the Chamber would end up consuming the remaining days of fair until the return of judicial activity. Those who were furthest behind could have an identical definition, which would add them to the list of partial rejections with the door open to the future. The CELS goes one chapter back and announced its appeal to the Contentious Chamber because in the first instance they denied the legitimacy for a collective action and precautionary measure. Nothing portends success. with this panorama that has just been configured. If you see that reaching February with most of the decree intact was a practically impossible goal for the Executive to reach as soon as the DNU was issued due to the political reaction it generated, that single fact, with the help of the Litigation, becomes a success. .





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *