The High Court in Madrid has ruled and declared the illegality of Ordinance governing the system of issuing and reviewing licenses the City of Madrid.
The judge based his decision on the standard, approved just a year ago, violates several articles of the Constitution and beyond the limits of municipal powers.
The ruling overrides the standard, which gives private companies the power to grant operating licenses and the promised Alberto Ruiz Gallardon streamline procedures and avoid fraudulent practices, but not have immediate effect until the appeal is lodged to the City .
The first argument that repairs the Court to annul the ordinance is in the planning powers of the City of Madrid to be the "number operator" and not legislature.
"The powers of a local authority is limited" and local autonomy is "administrative in nature and not political" as if they are the Autonomous Communities and the State, argued the sentence.
The Court also considers that the ordinance, adopted in plenary in June 2009, clashes with article 33 of the Constitution, which refers to private property.
Judges refer here to the imposition that the City makes the individual to hire (and pay) to control entities planning permission (ECLUS) para conseguir y renovar la licencia .
Los magistrados añaden a su argumentación que el ciudadano tiene que pagar, además de los precios acordados con las empresas, las tasas municipales correspondientes. Un extremo que el Ayuntamiento niega, ya que las "tasas fueron suprimidas cuando el sistema entró en funcionamiento"
La sentencia incide en la contraprestación que el ciudadano ha de pagar por los servicios de las ECLUS. Según los jueces la obligatoriedad de pagar por una prestación patrimonial debe recogerse en una norma de rango superior a una ordenanza , según recoge el artículo 31 de la Constitución.
Pero fuentes municipales defienden que el pago a las ECLUS is not a benefit in exchange for equity, as it does with rates, but it is "considered a special relationship" in which it agrees to pay for services rendered.
The second section of the High Court also discussed the possible confrontation of the ordinance to Article 18 of the Constitution concerning the inviolability of the home. According to the municipal law, holders of the activities involved in achieving an operating permit are required to allow staff to private entities access to their establishments.
an end, the judge said, could conflict with the law. The City, however, argues that space where you will develop a business far from the status of residence and therefore does not deserve the constitutional protection which the judge referred.
The right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution, is other fundamentals of the Court.
judges can show the helplessness of the citizen to the decision and "statements" that emit private companies which are final for obtaining a license for opening the business concerned.
The City does not agree with this point and argues that, given the actions of the ECLUSE, the city always may defend the administrative or judicial review which, according to municipal sources, ensuring effective judicial protection of citizens. Vine
Association, one that challenged the ordinance, expressed satisfaction with the ruling that upholds the interests of their members.
Source: www.elmundo.es
The judge based his decision on the standard, approved just a year ago, violates several articles of the Constitution and beyond the limits of municipal powers.
The ruling overrides the standard, which gives private companies the power to grant operating licenses and the promised Alberto Ruiz Gallardon streamline procedures and avoid fraudulent practices, but not have immediate effect until the appeal is lodged to the City .
The first argument that repairs the Court to annul the ordinance is in the planning powers of the City of Madrid to be the "number operator" and not legislature.
"The powers of a local authority is limited" and local autonomy is "administrative in nature and not political" as if they are the Autonomous Communities and the State, argued the sentence.
The Court also considers that the ordinance, adopted in plenary in June 2009, clashes with article 33 of the Constitution, which refers to private property.
Judges refer here to the imposition that the City makes the individual to hire (and pay) to control entities planning permission (ECLUS) para conseguir y renovar la licencia .
Los magistrados añaden a su argumentación que el ciudadano tiene que pagar, además de los precios acordados con las empresas, las tasas municipales correspondientes. Un extremo que el Ayuntamiento niega, ya que las "tasas fueron suprimidas cuando el sistema entró en funcionamiento"
La sentencia incide en la contraprestación que el ciudadano ha de pagar por los servicios de las ECLUS. Según los jueces la obligatoriedad de pagar por una prestación patrimonial debe recogerse en una norma de rango superior a una ordenanza , según recoge el artículo 31 de la Constitución.
Pero fuentes municipales defienden que el pago a las ECLUS is not a benefit in exchange for equity, as it does with rates, but it is "considered a special relationship" in which it agrees to pay for services rendered.
The second section of the High Court also discussed the possible confrontation of the ordinance to Article 18 of the Constitution concerning the inviolability of the home. According to the municipal law, holders of the activities involved in achieving an operating permit are required to allow staff to private entities access to their establishments.
an end, the judge said, could conflict with the law. The City, however, argues that space where you will develop a business far from the status of residence and therefore does not deserve the constitutional protection which the judge referred.
The right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution, is other fundamentals of the Court.
judges can show the helplessness of the citizen to the decision and "statements" that emit private companies which are final for obtaining a license for opening the business concerned.
The City does not agree with this point and argues that, given the actions of the ECLUSE, the city always may defend the administrative or judicial review which, according to municipal sources, ensuring effective judicial protection of citizens. Vine
Association, one that challenged the ordinance, expressed satisfaction with the ruling that upholds the interests of their members.
Source: www.elmundo.es
0 comments:
Post a Comment