[ad_1]
this San Diego Court of Appeal Acceptance of unlawful claims by five insurance companies concerning notices issued by the Committee for Financial Markets (CMF) authorising the withdrawal of annuity funds.
The ruling mentioned “The plaintiff, in the course of addressing this illegal allegation, has reasoned before the honourable parliamentarians. The Constitutional Court requests that the fiftieth transitional clause, paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Fundamental Charter, reproduced above, be inapplicable, as they are unconstitutional.
“In accordance with the above ruling, the above request is accepted and it is declared that the above paragraph is inapplicable due to its unconstitutionality.”
Likewise, for the Court of Appeal: “In this case, this Court cannot in any case take into account the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Fundamental Charter, pursuant to Article 93, paragraph 6, and paragraph 11 of the same Article”. The only provisions of Law No. 21,330, since the ruling is estimated not to apply, therefore the ruling is certainly binding and produces the effect of res judicata in this case. “
“Circular 1,208 is therefore the result of the provisions of the only article 12, 13 and 14 of Law No. 21,330, which states that the administrative act has no normative support and therefore its issuance becomes illegal, since it is impossible to apply the situation contemplated by this rule to insurance companies, since the Constitutional Court declared the above provisions of the law inapplicable, in the context of the above details, which is precisely the purpose of the provisions envisaged in Circular 1,208, which was made in accordance with articles 91 and 92 of the Law No. 17,997 of the Constitutional Court on the Constitutional Organization, which is binding in this jurisdiction.”
“In summary, it is not necessary to consider the remaining provisions cited in the illegality claim, which are unnecessary for the reasons cited above given the lack of regulatory support for Notice 1208.”
On the other hand, the ruling states: “Similarly, the argument put forward by the CMF in answering this claim is mainly the result of the aforementioned transitional constitutional norms, the content of the provisions in the aforementioned paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, which no longer has any support in view of the ruling that the aforementioned estimate is not applicable.”
“The claim of illegality must therefore be accepted in the manner indicated in the resolution,” A place where failure is certain.
In addition, the Ninth Chamber dismissed the appeal for inference of protection (Cause Role 25,119-2021), holding that it was inappropriate to analyze preventive actions related to the contested administrative claims.
Finally, it is concluded that, since the administrative actions mentioned above are the subject of a pending administrative litigation claim, that is why – as stated above – the ultimate illegality of these actions is already subject to the rule of law and the current precautionary measures must be rejected.
consult Text Completion sentence.
(Source: Judicial Power).
[ad_2]
Source link
