 |
| Constitutional Court: Court day. |
This case is a process initiated by a judge under whose dismissal was requested by the OCMA. According to the plaintiff, would have violated his constitutional rights to due process, defense, equality, a plurality of instances, and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.
the OCMA proposed the removal of the judge, including others, have acted with remarkable functional behavior severe irregular, with obvious intent to favor one party in a process, by providing the non-application of a rule, in contravention of the law issued by the Constitutional Court, which upheld the constitutionality of part of Articles of the Act, which enabled the granting of an injunction, breach of the prohibition and duty contained in the Code of the Constitution.
In its application, the judge claims ignorance of the Constitutional Court's jurisprudence, which, according to the agency, it is an unsubstantiated argument. The reason, they say, not only because of his capacity as judge was obliged to know the law of the TC on the specific subject-especially when it was a constitutional process - but because the matter had been referred to knowledge of the population through the media .
Based on these considerations, the Court finds no cause for action, concluding that there was no breach any law in the disciplinary process, referred to a report of the study area Echecopar constitutional.
0 comments:
Post a Comment