Magna Carta

Are not there enough jurisprudence that allows to interpret the application of the rules in a balanced manner? There is ample jurisprudence. What happens then? It happens that the excesses being not uncommon I mentioned that, the right to effective judicial protection which proclaims our Magna Carta it suffers serious way at the attitude of ISM of the theses of the Administration, so normal in the jurisdiction, at least in this field. Many times I have wondered to this attitude should be and I believe have found a plausible response: the judge part of the presumption of veracity of what says the Administration and presumed fraud by the administered instinctively. This is a starting position to which one has to face. So much so much so that before a brutally disproportionate embargo, which does not need any additional evidence to allege the disproportion, the court usually require the managed that it alleges the disproportion, that spend the money on an expert opinion attesting it. I will not be that faced the established doctrine of the lifting of the veil and all solid presumptions that play in this field of law.

I will neither deny the most proven existence of fraud in this field. Yes I say that nothing can justify the sanction without sufficient proof and guarantees many of the managed. And the exorbitant application of powers of administration, turned too often into arbitrary actions, are not matched with the appropriate ban within the framework of the corresponding jurisdiction. Note that I’ve shied away from any reference to specific standards, because as I said at the beginning, what interests me is to put on the table the problem, which translates into human tragedy of great magnitude in real life. Nothing I would like more than the interest that would allow an exchange of analysis, already focusing on rules and cases.

Comments are closed.