Post by account_disabled on Feb 26, 2024 22:38:35 GMT -5
The State's lawyer affirmed that PACMA is not a non-profit legal entity, but a political party that has a special and exclusive regime and that the parties are nourished by public and private resources, therefore, “it is evident that a party political is not included for the purposes of free legal aid.”
The Supreme Court, in a ruling consulted by this newspaper, points out that “it is clear that political parties meet the conditions of being legal entities and not having a profit motive ,” taking into account that they are prohibited by law from developing commercial activities. He adds that the expression contained in Law 27/2006 of “anyone” has “a determined vocation to cover in a global and comprehensive manner all organizations that meet the established requirements,” not contemplating “exceptions or reservations.” If the fact of receiving some type of subsidies - the amount of which depends on their electoral results - were exclusive and "the exclusion of all political parties were indiscriminately denied, there would be an unacceptable effect of exclusion of minority parties that have not achieved significant electoral results and lack funds to promote the defense of their programmatic objectives,” the Supreme Court emphasizes.
The High Court adds that "it is not possible to understand why, having attributed popular action in such a general manner to any personified social groups whose statutory objective is the defense and preservation of the environment, it is intended to deny such possibility, however, to "the political parties that have been established as a manifestation of the fundamental right of participation in public affairs (art. 23.1 CE) with the same protective purpose, and have made it the center of their action program ."
The lawyer who handled this matter was Jacqueline García de Blanck. Her colleague Mónica Olivares, who, like her, is part of the Commission on Animal Rights of the Madrid Bar Association, affirms that “they have always been very insistent with all the environmental associations that fight for Free Justice because we think it is a shame that "They have to be doing the work for the Administrations, challenging the laws and paying for it with their own resources." She points out that most of society, including legal operators, “ is not aware that there is a complementary law to Law 1/1996 that establishes the general requirements for access to Free Legal Assistance. In environmental matters, we have Law 27/2006, which allows legal entities that have environmental protection among their purposes access to this right." This lawyer regrets that this law is ignored by the commissions in charge of granting free justice.
The first time Olivares managed to be granted Free Justice to an organization for the protection of the environment, two years ago, he represented Grupo Lobo Euskadi . Th Argentina Mobile Number List same thing happened as on this occasion: they denied it and, later, the court granted it. “We encourage all associations and NGOs that are defending the environment to claim this rule because the competent bodies are rejecting it. It is a shame because those entities that do not have the money to pay a lawyer specializing in administrative litigation cannot appeal,” he says. And he regrets that “this had to reach the Supreme Court because the right should have been recognized by the regional commissions or by the Central Commission of Free Justice.”
The lawyer emphasizes that this case is also especially interesting because the Supreme Court has confirmed that a political party, if it meets the requirements established by law, can benefit from Free Justice , contrary to what is maintained by the State Attorney's Office.
Regarding the main issue of the litigation with which they have reached the Supreme Court, Olivares states that it is “absolutely unprecedented and inadmissible for these barbaric activities to be declared an Asset of Cultural Interest. For this reason, PACMA has been trying to reverse that statement for two years.
The Supreme Court, in a ruling consulted by this newspaper, points out that “it is clear that political parties meet the conditions of being legal entities and not having a profit motive ,” taking into account that they are prohibited by law from developing commercial activities. He adds that the expression contained in Law 27/2006 of “anyone” has “a determined vocation to cover in a global and comprehensive manner all organizations that meet the established requirements,” not contemplating “exceptions or reservations.” If the fact of receiving some type of subsidies - the amount of which depends on their electoral results - were exclusive and "the exclusion of all political parties were indiscriminately denied, there would be an unacceptable effect of exclusion of minority parties that have not achieved significant electoral results and lack funds to promote the defense of their programmatic objectives,” the Supreme Court emphasizes.
The High Court adds that "it is not possible to understand why, having attributed popular action in such a general manner to any personified social groups whose statutory objective is the defense and preservation of the environment, it is intended to deny such possibility, however, to "the political parties that have been established as a manifestation of the fundamental right of participation in public affairs (art. 23.1 CE) with the same protective purpose, and have made it the center of their action program ."
The lawyer who handled this matter was Jacqueline García de Blanck. Her colleague Mónica Olivares, who, like her, is part of the Commission on Animal Rights of the Madrid Bar Association, affirms that “they have always been very insistent with all the environmental associations that fight for Free Justice because we think it is a shame that "They have to be doing the work for the Administrations, challenging the laws and paying for it with their own resources." She points out that most of society, including legal operators, “ is not aware that there is a complementary law to Law 1/1996 that establishes the general requirements for access to Free Legal Assistance. In environmental matters, we have Law 27/2006, which allows legal entities that have environmental protection among their purposes access to this right." This lawyer regrets that this law is ignored by the commissions in charge of granting free justice.
The first time Olivares managed to be granted Free Justice to an organization for the protection of the environment, two years ago, he represented Grupo Lobo Euskadi . Th Argentina Mobile Number List same thing happened as on this occasion: they denied it and, later, the court granted it. “We encourage all associations and NGOs that are defending the environment to claim this rule because the competent bodies are rejecting it. It is a shame because those entities that do not have the money to pay a lawyer specializing in administrative litigation cannot appeal,” he says. And he regrets that “this had to reach the Supreme Court because the right should have been recognized by the regional commissions or by the Central Commission of Free Justice.”
The lawyer emphasizes that this case is also especially interesting because the Supreme Court has confirmed that a political party, if it meets the requirements established by law, can benefit from Free Justice , contrary to what is maintained by the State Attorney's Office.
Regarding the main issue of the litigation with which they have reached the Supreme Court, Olivares states that it is “absolutely unprecedented and inadmissible for these barbaric activities to be declared an Asset of Cultural Interest. For this reason, PACMA has been trying to reverse that statement for two years.