KOT
Kot SRL The company had a strike by staff at its textile factory in San Martín (Buenos Aires).
The Delegation of Saint Martin of the Provincial Department of Labor declared the strike illegal, therefore Kot company ordered its employees to resume work within 24 hours. Faced with the failure of that mandate was laid off many workers.
After just over a month, the president of the Provincial Labour Department quashed the decision of the St. Maarten delegation and demanded the company to reinstate the dismissed workers.
Failure to reach an agreement with the company, the workers occupied the factory dismissed completely paralyzed, by what John Kot, manager of the company made a claim of misappropriation, asking it to vacate the factory.
The trial judge ruled the dismissal of the case and did not grant the request for unemployment claiming that it was a trade union dispute in which the workers are not attempting to occupy the factory to exercise a right of ownership and therefore Thus there was no encroachment.
The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of La Plata confirmed the dismissal. Against this ruling Kot filed an extraordinary appeal and the Court declared it inadmissible. Looking Kot
its claim of misappropriation did not give expected results, alongside other causes initiated. Before sentencing the Court of Appeals, appeared before the same deduction amparo for the evacuation of the factory. To invoke Kot was based the decision by the Court in the case Siri, freedom of work, the right to property and the right to self-activity, all of these covered by the Constitution.
The Chamber allowed the appeal not raised that it was playing a writ of habeas corpus filed an appeal against this decision extraordinary.
The Court ruled in favor of Kot, making the writ of amparo after the verdict of the Court of Appeals. Ordered to surrender to the textile factory kot free of any occupant stating that "the House Appeals is mistaken in considering the remedy invoked by the victim as a writ of Habeas Corpus. The person concerned lodged an amparo action by invoking the constitutional rights of freedom of labor, property and freedom of activity, that is, claimed a separate warranty that protects the freedom body (habeas corpus), so it was that the court upheld the decision in the case Siri (the latter came from illegal restraint of public authority. In the instant case is caused by acts of individuals.)
The Section 33 of the Constitution to make mention of the rights and excludes any implied warranty arising from particular restrictions; "Nothing, neither in letter nor the spirit of the Constitution to suggest that the protection of human rights is circumscribed called the attacks that come only from the authority."
"Failure to make the writ of amparo would be submitting to the plaintiff to resort to a slow and costly defense through regular procedures. This would not be much more interested since it occupied by a building worker is not productive, but a factory in operation, producing private. "
" On the merits, is notorious unlawful restraint by the workers , since no law of our system law recognizes them (neither they nor any other sector, except either by self-defense or necessity), the power to apply themselves to act to defend what they consider their right. "
Even if the workers have every reason, the occupation of the factory by those illegitimate.
Dissent: Aristobulus D. Araoz de Lamadrid, Julio Oyhanarte
declare inadmissible the special appeal.
can not rely on the issue decided by the Court in the case Siri, since in it the court declared the existence of an appeal, to protect so-called "constitutional guarantees", according to the this case should face restrictions on guarantees made by the public authority therefore can not be mentioned constitutional guarantees that the conflict is between acts of individuals.
The issue should be subject to ordinary legislation in accordance with the relevant procedural rules, not by writ of amparo. The violation does not fall on a constitutional guarantee, but on a private individual right, of which originate in the relations between individuals, the legislation where the event occurred provides a specific procedural remedy, so if it were acceptable to appeal would rescinding the current procedural rules.
can not judges accepted that broaden the scope of protection, extending to the violations committed by individuals.
Expands the scope of amparo to be established that is viable also deduce that the violation of a right comes from a particular.
It confirms the supremacy of the Constitution regarding the protection of the rights established in the Arts. 14, 17 and 19 of the Constitution.
Kot SRL The company had a strike by staff at its textile factory in San Martín (Buenos Aires).
The Delegation of Saint Martin of the Provincial Department of Labor declared the strike illegal, therefore Kot company ordered its employees to resume work within 24 hours. Faced with the failure of that mandate was laid off many workers.
After just over a month, the president of the Provincial Labour Department quashed the decision of the St. Maarten delegation and demanded the company to reinstate the dismissed workers.
Failure to reach an agreement with the company, the workers occupied the factory dismissed completely paralyzed, by what John Kot, manager of the company made a claim of misappropriation, asking it to vacate the factory.
The trial judge ruled the dismissal of the case and did not grant the request for unemployment claiming that it was a trade union dispute in which the workers are not attempting to occupy the factory to exercise a right of ownership and therefore Thus there was no encroachment.
The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of La Plata confirmed the dismissal. Against this ruling Kot filed an extraordinary appeal and the Court declared it inadmissible. Looking Kot
its claim of misappropriation did not give expected results, alongside other causes initiated. Before sentencing the Court of Appeals, appeared before the same deduction amparo for the evacuation of the factory. To invoke Kot was based the decision by the Court in the case Siri, freedom of work, the right to property and the right to self-activity, all of these covered by the Constitution.
The Chamber allowed the appeal not raised that it was playing a writ of habeas corpus filed an appeal against this decision extraordinary.
The Court ruled in favor of Kot, making the writ of amparo after the verdict of the Court of Appeals. Ordered to surrender to the textile factory kot free of any occupant stating that "the House Appeals is mistaken in considering the remedy invoked by the victim as a writ of Habeas Corpus. The person concerned lodged an amparo action by invoking the constitutional rights of freedom of labor, property and freedom of activity, that is, claimed a separate warranty that protects the freedom body (habeas corpus), so it was that the court upheld the decision in the case Siri (the latter came from illegal restraint of public authority. In the instant case is caused by acts of individuals.)
The Section 33 of the Constitution to make mention of the rights and excludes any implied warranty arising from particular restrictions; "Nothing, neither in letter nor the spirit of the Constitution to suggest that the protection of human rights is circumscribed called the attacks that come only from the authority."
"Failure to make the writ of amparo would be submitting to the plaintiff to resort to a slow and costly defense through regular procedures. This would not be much more interested since it occupied by a building worker is not productive, but a factory in operation, producing private. "
" On the merits, is notorious unlawful restraint by the workers , since no law of our system law recognizes them (neither they nor any other sector, except either by self-defense or necessity), the power to apply themselves to act to defend what they consider their right. "
Even if the workers have every reason, the occupation of the factory by those illegitimate.
Dissent: Aristobulus D. Araoz de Lamadrid, Julio Oyhanarte
declare inadmissible the special appeal.
can not rely on the issue decided by the Court in the case Siri, since in it the court declared the existence of an appeal, to protect so-called "constitutional guarantees", according to the this case should face restrictions on guarantees made by the public authority therefore can not be mentioned constitutional guarantees that the conflict is between acts of individuals.
The issue should be subject to ordinary legislation in accordance with the relevant procedural rules, not by writ of amparo. The violation does not fall on a constitutional guarantee, but on a private individual right, of which originate in the relations between individuals, the legislation where the event occurred provides a specific procedural remedy, so if it were acceptable to appeal would rescinding the current procedural rules.
can not judges accepted that broaden the scope of protection, extending to the violations committed by individuals.
Expands the scope of amparo to be established that is viable also deduce that the violation of a right comes from a particular.
It confirms the supremacy of the Constitution regarding the protection of the rights established in the Arts. 14, 17 and 19 of the Constitution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment