They declare unconstitutional a law on the Buenos Aires TSJ / Argentina News

Chamber J of the National Chamber of Civil Appeals of the Federal Capital declared “ex officio” the unconstitutionality of article 4 of Law 6,452 issued by the Legislature of the City of Buenos Aires. The rule was intended to authorize its Superior Court of Justice – a local body – to intervene as a reviewer of the sentences handed down by the National Courts based in the Federal Capital, something to which the civil servants Maximiliano Caía, Beatriz Verón and Gabriela Scolarici strongly objected.

Although it applies to a particular case, it is important to note that it is the first decision of these characteristics that comes from the hand of a file. In any case, it is still necessary to wait for the ruling of the Federal Chamber of Appeals in Federal Administrative Litigation, which in two chambers has the collective lawsuits presented by the Public Bar Association of the Federal Capital and the group of People of Law that it represents. to the ruling party in the Buenos Aires registration.

The ruling turns out to be a forceful pronouncement, since it is not usual for the declaration of unconstitutionality to be declared “ex officio by the judges,” that is, without a request from the party.

However, given the institutional gravity they adopted that decision. In this way, they set a precedent that could multiply in each of the attempts to try to climb the TSJ, what was considered the virtual creation of a fourth instance.

The norm had been approved by the Buenos Aires legislature

In this sense, the magistrates pointed out that it is evident that the Buenos Aires legislature has exceeded the scope of own jurisdiction, granting itself powers that the constitution of the City itself does not recognize. That was also the axis of the presentations made before the courts by the lawyers’ protection and also by the Association of Magistrates itself.

They added that the norm in question is not only contrary to all legal logic, but also constitutes a decision in violation of Constitutional Supremacy, from any point of view where it is analyzed and studied, since it violates the principle of normative hierarchy when, As is known, the federal Legislative Power is the one that is in charge of sanctioning the legal norms that impose conduct on certain categories of people and is exercised by the National Congress.

They also pointed out that the challenged law subverts the constitutional order of priority of laws, by introducing a modification to the procedure of the Superior Court of Justice, and constitutes a new local institute and impossible to assimilate to those established at the national level, when the local legislature lacks the powers to dictate adjective rules to be complied with by the courts of national jurisdiction, and does not have the power to modify national laws