by While the Supreme Court of Justice agreed to decide whether to treat a Kirchnerism proposal to stop the Decree of Necessity and Urgency (DNU) signed by President Javier Milei, There have already been 25 presentations in the Administrative Litigation courts. It is to prevent the implementation of the DNU under the figure of a precautionary measure so that later progress can be made in the substantive discussion: all the protections request the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Government’s measure.
In the Contentious Administrative jurisdiction of the Federal Capital – where trials against some of the powers of the State are analyzed -, around twenty claims were prosecuted with the DNU of President Mieli. One of the proposals was based in the city of La Plata but did not prosper because it was not its natural competition.
Judge Esteban Furnari was the one who won as a collective action the protection presented by lawyer Jonatan Baldiviezo, founder of the Civil Association Observatory of the Right to the City; Claudio Lozano, former K official and president of Unidad Popular; the Inga. María Eva Koutsovitis, founder of The City Movement We Are Those Who Inhabit It; Godoy, Secretary General of the National Autonomous CTA and Rodolfo Aguiar, Secretary General of the National ATE.
furnari Today he required the labor court to send him the CGT lawsuit against DNU 70 of the national Government to process it together with other cases within the framework of a collective process opened in its court
The magistrate gave rise to an inhibitory proposal made by the National State through the Office of the Treasury of the Nation, directed by Rodolfo Barra.
The CGT claim is being processed in the National Labor Court 69, headed by Judge Ignacio Ramonet, from where the Government had been given a period of three days to respond to the claims of unconstitutionality of the norm.
Furnari ordered to notify Ramonet and to room VIII of the National Chamber of Labor, which must resolve an appeal from the CGT against the decision of the labor judge not to issue a precautionary measure to suspend the effects of the decree regarding the regulations related to work and which came into effect today.
The purpose is to “generate the bases to provide an appropriate jurisdictional response and univocal to the case that has been raised in different jurisdictions and jurisdictions regarding the constitutionality of DNU 70/2023,” he stated.
Barra appeared in the Federal Administrative Litigation jurisdiction and asked Furnari to assume jurisdiction to process the CGT complaint, a request to which the magistrate agreed.
Furnari requested the referral of the CGT claim for “the continuation of its process” in its court “within the framework of the collective process” Civil Association Observatory of the Right to the City and others C/ EN-DNU 70/23 S/ amparo Law 16,986″, extension 48013/2023″
It will thus be sought that all presentations of a collective nature, processed jointly once the registration of each claim in the Registry of Collective Processes is ordered. There is jurisprudence to accumulate this type of protection in the contentious jurisdiction.
The central argument is to avoid “situations of institutional seriousness” given the possibility that, as there are so many complaints in different courts and jurisdictions, “contradictory sentences are issued and that the decisions that fall in one of the processes become res judicata with respect to those raised.” in other”.
The Decree that will come into force tonight has 83 pages through which the deregulation of the economy is sought through a package of measures and the repeal of 300 regulations. The most renowned are the Rental Law, those linked to the labor regime, the Supply Law and those that exercised price controls.
Each of the 25 amparos presented has two central items: on the one hand, they ask for an urgent precautionary measure whose immediate effect – if accepted – is the suspension of the DNU. Secondly, with similar expressions, all judicial actions maintain that the regulations signed by Javier Milei are unconstitutional. A statement in this regard is what they ask for.
It is Judge Esteban Furnari who opened the way for the collective presentations that are presented to be registered in the Official Registry and form the collective protection against the DNU.
This Friday the protection action benefited of an associate director of Swiss Medical SA asking for the unconstitutionality of those aspects linked to the Health sector. More specifically, he claims “the unconstitutionality of arts. 267 and 269 of the Necessity and Urgency Decree No. 70/2023. He argued that the Executive Branch has legislated repealing articles 5, subsections g) and the first two paragraphs of article 17 of law 26,682, on public order, leaving the determination of the value for the provision of their services to the free arbitration of the Medicine Companies. health Service”.
It was added in that protection that “the discretionary setting of the value of the fee by the Prepaid Medicine Companies will modify in their favor the expected initial economic equation in the ongoing contracts.” Judge Juan Rafael Stinco requested registration in the Registry of Collective Processes.
This measure follows the same path as the protection action of the former head of Banco Nación from the management of the Frente de Todos, Claudio Lozano. The prosecutor considered that Judge Esteban Furnari has jurisdiction to analyze the claim.
While this was happening, the judge of La Plata, Alberto Recondo, rejected the protection of the Buenos Aires government, understanding that it is not his jurisdiction and that this protection must be processed in the collective action enabled by Judge Furnari in the City of Buenos Aires.
Among the rejected measures were claims in the labor court where Judge Ignacio Ramonet dismissed the precautionary measure filed by the CGT since the DNU was not yet in force. The presentation took place 24 hours before the march and mobilization on Wednesday of this week.
The labyrinthine path of this protection action added another element: the judge, despite this rejection, understood that he was competent to analyze the claim and the first thing he promoted was a request to the State to detail the scope of the DNU. Given the refusal to promote the precautionary measure, both the CGT and the CTA appealed the criteria used by the magistrate.
However, the Treasury Attorney (the State’s lawyer), Rodolfo Barra, demanded that the proposal of the union centers be processed in the labor jurisdiction. This criterion was endorsed by the contentious administrative judge Esteban Furnari, and he ordered Ramonet, from the labor court, to forward all the actions to be accumulated with the collective process.
They are not the only presentations in process. Lawyer Andrés Gil Domínguez and other individuals appeared outside the collective action. The CELS also did the same, demanding the declaration of unconstitutionality of DNU 70/2023.
Finally, to the extensive list is added the Argentine Federation of Municipalities, led by Fernando Espinoza, communal chief of La Matanza, a clear Kirchnerist bastion, who anticipated that under the same terms as the other protections, they will go to court to block the president’s Decree . Milei.
In the twenty lawsuits presented to the courts, the terms that support them coincide: they claim “the unconstitutionality and absolute and irremediable nullity of the Decree of Necessity and Urgency No. 70/2023 and of any regulation or act that derives from its validity or dictated in its compliance, for violating the Constitution of the Argentine Nation (arts. 29, 33, 36, 76; art. 75, paragraphs 18 and 19, art. 99, paragraph 3), for constituting the exercise of extraordinary powers and powers equivalent to the sum of public power.”
The article cited in the amparo maintains that the Executive Branch can issue decrees of necessity and urgency, “when exceptional circumstances require it and the meeting of Congress cannot be expected.” As the plaintiffs understand that this requirement is not met, they advanced the Amparo action.
Furthermore, they request its annulment “for constituting a reduction of power and an abuse of public law, for violating the republican principle, the division of powers, democracy, the principle of reservation of law and the collective rights of Argentine citizens to participation ”. in the direction of public affairs directly or through their representatives.”
