The Supreme Court denies the very precautionary measure requested by PP senators regarding ministerial appearances

This Saturday, the vacation chamber of the Supreme Court issued an order in which it denied the very precautionary measure requested by three senators from the Popular Party, on its behalf, in relation to the non-appearance of several ministers in the Senate during this month of August after the migratory crisis unleashed in Ceuta.

The court explains, among other arguments, that "in view of the allegations made, it is not considered appropriate to grant the unprecedented precautionary measure requested, since the special urgency legally required to proceed in this way with sacrifice of the opposing party's right to a hearing has not been proven."

"In particular," the order adds, "it is not sufficiently justified that the parliamentary control that the appellants link to the effective exercise of their 'ius in officcium' as senators, recognized in article 23.2 of the Constitution, must necessarily occur, to be effective, within the extraordinary period of the month of August (of which only one week remains), if we take into account that the resolution of the precautionary measure through its ordinary procedure will not be excessively delayed."

The judicial resolution indicates that "no reason is offered to justify that the appeal would lose its legitimate purpose of protecting or protecting the fundamental right whose injury is invoked, the right to exercise the representative office that the status of senator entails, to which the Government's power of control is inherent, due to the sole circumstance that said control could be carried out after substantiating the precautionary measure with a hearing of the counterparty."

“Especially because there is no indication that the public interest in the substantive issue that, as alleged, supports the summoned appearance requests, focused on the serious immigration crisis that the Autonomous City of Ceuta has been suffering these days, is going to disappear,” he adds.

The Chamber adds that "in the weighing of the interests at stake, there is therefore no special urgency that would justify sacrificing the right of hearing of the opposing party prior to the adoption of the precautionary decision, which would also be immediately enforceable, so said right of hearing could be merely illusory, which, if possible, requires greater justification of the genuine urgency of the measure requested."

For all these reasons, it denies the very precautionary claim formulated and orders the processing of the precautionary incident as ordinary, with a hearing of the opposing party, for which it gives a period of ten days to the State Attorney's Office to formulate its allegations.

The order emphasizes that the ruling is made exclusively with regard to the urgent precautionary decision and does not prejudge or predetermine eventual decisions on jurisdiction, competence and admissibility of the procedure itself.