The Superior Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia transmitted to the Supreme Court the appeal against the inaction of the government of Pedro Sánchez to DANAwhich has already left more than 200 dead and dozens missing. The Liberum association filed this appeal before the Valencian courts, requesting, among other things, the adoption of precautionary measures to protect people’s health as well as the imposition of the state of alarm. The Chamber, chaired by the judge Manuel Baeza Díaz-Portalesdecided to refer the appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of jurisdiction. According to the order of the speaker José María Magán, it is the higher court that must decide on this question, because there are cases.
On November 5, the judges of the Superior Court of Justice of Valencia met to address a rContentious-administrative procedure against the administrative actions of the Sánchez Government Delegation after the devastating DANA. Liberum accused the executive of violate the fundamental right to life and physical and moral integrityfor understanding that there is a failure of the national government’s legal obligations in the face of a disaster of the magnitude of DANA. The court opened a separate room on this subject to address the urgent precautionary measures in which a rapid response was requested from the Administration to mitigate the effects of the atmospheric phenomenon that shocked the country.
The official speaker raised a question of material competence and gave the complainants and the Prosecutor’s Office 24 hours to present their allegations. The public prosecutor cHe responded – in a writing consulted by OKDIARIO – that he understood that material jurisdiction must correspond to the Supreme Court. The Chamber accepted these theses: “PDue to the limited special urgency that exists in the present case, given the situation of natural disaster produced in the peripheral villages of the city of Valencia, the underlying legal question is whether this Chamber can hear the request presented, even declaring the same resolution it is lack of jurisdiction on the merits to hear the main dispute“.
The magistrates also ruled on the precautionary measures requested by Liberum. Likewise, they refer the decision to future judgments of the Supreme Court. “It should be the competent body depending on the case which decides about them; Therefore, from this Superior Court of Justice, the procedures will be sent to the Supreme Court by the fastest possible route, for its knowledge and effects”, they affirm, asking for speed in the resolution. For now , the Contentious-Administrative Chamber has not ruled on this question, but it will have to do so in the coming weeks, since precautionary measures are requested on the DANA.
Individual vote
The deliberation had a private vote cast by the judge Miguel Ángel Narváez Bermejo. The magistrate maintains that, from his point of view, the inhibition of the jurisdiction of the Chamber in favor of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court should have been adopted by the budget for the applicability of the prior requirement is missing so that we can see the inactivity of the Administration. In no case due to the incompetence of the House in the matter, appreciated by the majority, agreeing on everything else with the adopted majority decision.
“The other reasoning on the ephemeral duration of the precautionary measure which would be adopted by the Chamber does not resist the non-trivial argument according to which given the risks of contagion due to the consumption of contaminated water for example, the precautionary measure that should be adopted for it to be effective, it would be necessary was immediate and urgent and without delay given the speed with which contagious diseases spread this must be avoided, without taking into account that what is indicated in the law on contentious and administrative jurisdiction is that precautionary measures, with exceptions, last until the completion of the procedure in which they were agreed, the determining reason , fundamental and decisive, which From my point of view, what prevents the adoption of any positive precautionary measure in this case is that the procedural requirements envisaged are not met”, declares the judge in disagreement with the majority .
