The Constitutional also rejects the closure of Congress at the beginning of the pandemic

The Constitutional Court has decided to annul the suspension of the activity of Congress decreed in the first weeks of the state of alarm in 2020. As advanced The countrys and has confirmed, the judges have decided to support Vox’s appeal with six votes in favor and four against. As revealed by, the far-right party appealed the measure after order by letter to the speaker of the lower house, Meritxell Batet, to annul the congressional agenda.

Vox requested by letter to Batet to annul the agenda of Congress for COVID and then appealed the paralysis to the Constitutional

Vox asked Batet by letter to annul the Congress agenda for COVID and then appealed the paralysis to the Constitutional

Know more

The judges, as the Constitutional Court explains in a statement, understand that the fundamental right to political participation of the deputies has been violated by this closure that lasted several weeks. It declares the nullity of the agreements of the Board of Congress of March 19, agreeing to suspend both regulatory deadlines for initiatives and the subsequent one on April 21 that rejected Vox’s claim.

The statement adds that, according to the Constitutional Court, the declaration of the state of alarm “cannot in any case interrupt the functioning of any of the constitutional powers of the State and, in particular, the Congress of Deputies.” The decision of the Bureau of Congress, therefore, “temporarily ceased the processing of parliamentary initiatives” of the rest of the deputies.

The sentence, as has happened in previous cases, has not been unanimous and will have the particular votes of several magistrates: Cándido Conde-Pumpido, María Luisa Balaguer, Juan Antonio Xiol and President Juan José González Rivas.

It is a new judicial victory for Vox to now resort to government measures related to the fight against the first and devastating wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in our country. Last July, the same plenary session accepted an appeal from the far-right formation and declared unconstitutional measures such as confinement strict in understanding that they had been taken under the umbrella of an insufficient state of alarm. A ruling that was not unanimous and that considered that the executive should have opted for the state of exception.

In that case, Vox also appealed a measure that previously had supported with their votes in Congress. The judges of the court of guarantees still have more issues related to the pandemic to be resolved, also raised through Vox resources, such as the extension of the state of alarm.

The magistrates of the court of guarantees had planned to vote on this ruling in the September plenary session but a change of opinion by the rapporteur, Antonio Narváez, forced the decision to be delayed. He went from proposing a dismissal sentence to putting on the table an estimate of Vox’s appeal, today getting the support of six colleagues. One of the magistrates has not participated in the plenary session due to illness.


Source link