The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands announced that it did not accept the request of the Government of the Canary Islands to lift the very cautious suspension of the application of the protocol for migrant or accompanied minors.
In this way, the Chamber of Tenerife confirms the decision it took on September 20 in response to a request from the Superior Prosecutor’s Office of the Canary Islands, and that invalid the protocol published on September 12 by the Executive led by Fernando Clavijo.
The order of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber insists that this is an “urgent and exceptional resolution” derived from “vulnerability» of minors and in order to guarantee their “maximum protection”. In addition, he specifies that it is not possible “to anticipate the judgment on the merits of the case” or “to clarify the controversial» between the parties, and leaves the door open to file an appeal for reconsideration.
The Canary Islands Government is not wrong, since the Chamber assumes that the reception capacity for migrant minors in the Canaries “has been visibly overflowing» and the figures “are only increasing”, with almost 6,000 minors at the end of September. “The Government of the Canary Islands is not without reason when it cites the degree of saturation of the resources at its disposal and certainly also when it opposes the way in which foreign minors are handed over, taking into account the documentation that ‘he provides.’ , collects the text.
For this reason, we appeal to “institutional loyalty” and a “much more intense interaction» between administrations since convening a sectoral conference on children is not enough. The Chamber also highlights how the prosecution defends that if it lifted the preventive suspension, the minors “would be lacking immediate attention and in a situation of powerlessness “and with a view to asserting one’s claim” invokes the application of the criterion of the appearance of good rights; assessment of conflicting interests; “the loss of the legitimate purpose of the resource as well as the absence of serious disruption of the general interest”.
Also go with “some surprise“because the public prosecutor’s office and the regional government “not only plead to defend their respective approach to their own powers, but also refer to the extent of those which do not belong to them”. There is therefore a “very particular situation”, admits -it, namely that both parties claim to act in their defense and therefore do not seek to assert different interests but rather invoke in their favor the protection of the same interest, the best interest of the minor.
“It would be appropriate to denounce the inaction of the State”
The Chamber also states that it would be “useless” the adoption of a territorial protocol and if we develop the state framework protocol of 2014 and if there is a “persistent non-compliance”, as the Canarian government maintains, he emphasizes that “what is appropriate would be report state inaction.
However, the Chamber assures that if the Canarian Territorial Protocol were applied, there is a “founded and reasonable suspicion” that with the measures in place it could “to slow down» the moment of handing over and receiving minors to the responsible authorities, which “negatively impacts” their rights and underlines that it is “undeniable” that there is a “risk of lack of protection” for minors not accompanied if this delay occurs.
