Publication: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 4:38 PM
The Supreme Court rejected the precautionary suspension requested by Vox of the closure of the perimeter of the Community of Madrid for the San José and Easter Bridge.
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber has issued an order in which it rejects the request for precaution requested by the parliamentary group Vox to the Assembly of Madrid and its spokesperson Rocío Monasterio against the decree of the regional president, which established the closure of the perimeter of the region under the terms approved by the Interterritorial Council of the National Health System on March 10.
The court had already denied on the 18th the very precautionary suspension requested by Vox and given the Community and the public prosecutor a deadline to present their allegations to the conservatory. Madrid argued that they saw the suspension impractical for reasons of prudence, and lawyers, that the irreversible damage the decree would cause had not materialized, in addition to alleging the lack of active legitimacy of Vox and his spokesperson to appeal.
The Supreme’s arguments
The Supreme Court now opposes the suspension of the decree on a precautionary basis by failing to notice the appearance of good law alleged by the appellants, because it has not been proven that, if the precautionary measure does not is not adopted, irreversible situations will arise and because the weighting of interests clearly leads to maintaining the validity and application of the said decree.
Los magistrados afirman that Vox no explica qué perjuicios irreversibles se producirán de no suspender el decreto, ya que el hecho de que se tomaran varios días antes de interponer su recurso es un indicio de que no debieron percibirlos de tal manera que les moviera has actuar procesalmente at once.
The Supreme Court adds that Rocío Monasterio was not particularly clear and precise either, beyond his insistence that the correct measures are those of the Community of Madrid and that the wrong measures are those of the Interterritorial Council, of the allegation of damage that the treatment of these travel from abroad, the damage caused to five million people or the absence of contradiction between their interests contrary to the measures and the interest defended by the Autonomous Community.
As for the interests at stake, the Chamber recalls that it is not true that those expressed by Vox and those of the Community of Madrid coincide, since “whatever the preamble of the decree of its president (…) applies the controversial Consequently, the precepts of this decree are those which must be taken into account in determining the interests it claims. They are none other than the protection of the rights to life and health of all “.
In addition, “ the persistence of the pandemic being well known and the Chamber having considered that one of the factors favoring the spread of the disease is the interpersonal contact which facilitates travel, in the absence of other arguments, it is reasonable to opt now for a solution which expresses greater caution, as requested by the lawyer for the Autonomous Community of Madrid “.
Regarding the lack of an active position alleged by the public prosecutor, the Chamber recalls its criteria concerning parliamentary groups to challenge acts or provisions which do not affect the constitutional position which corresponds to them or the representative function that they practise. According to the decree, it was not explained how the measures contained in the decree negatively affect the condition of the deputies of the Assembly or their tasks. However, he agreed to listen to Monastery, because it is true that the measurements he collects concern him, as a resident of the region.