scholarly journals Sentencias Arbitrarias: la falta de objetividad frente a la defensa de derechos fundamentales / Arbitrary Sentences: the lack of objectivity against the defense of fundamental rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 206-213
Author(s):  
Antonela Bordignon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right

El presente artículo analizará el fallo dictado por la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, a través del cual, hacen lugar al recurso extraordinario y deja sin efecto la sentencia impugnada por la demandada en la causa “C.T., N c/OSDE s/amparo de Salud”.  El órgano supremo de Justicia de la Nación consideró que la alzada carecía de fundamentos que dieran sustento a su decisión; así como también existía una clara omisión en la valoración de las pruebas aportadas por la parte demandada, lo que la colocaba en una situación desventajosa. Entiende la Corte que se está frente a otra de las tantas sentencias arbitrarias. ¿Incide entonces que se trate de derechos fundamentales, como es el derecho a la salud? ¿Pierden objetividad los magistrados cuando se encuentran involucrados esta clase de derechos? Se intentará dilucidar a continuación.   This article will analyze the sentence handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, through which, it leaves the sentence contested by the defendant in the case “CT, N c / OSDE s / amparo de Salud” without effect. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation considered that the elevation lacked grounds to support its decision; as well as there was a clear omission in the assessment of the evidence provided by the defendant, which placed it in a disadvantageous situation. The Court understands that it is facing another of the many arbitrary sentences. Does it imply that these are fundamental rights, such as the right to health? ¿Do magistrates lose objectivity when this kind of rights is involved? Attempts will be made to clarify below.

scholarly journals Derecho a la salud vs. derecho de defensa / Right to health vs. right of defense

2018 ◽  
pp. 164-170
Author(s):  
Nadia Virginia Copello
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Medical Benefits ◽  
The Right

La Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina revocó una sentencia que condenaba a una Obra Social al cumplimiento de prestaciones médicas. En el novedoso caso están en juego el derecho a la salud, a la cobertura médica integral de personas con discapacidad y el derecho de defensa, más precisamente, el respeto por el debido proceso, siendo esto último la base para así decidir en favor de la demandada.   The Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation revoked a sentence that condemned a Social Work to the fulfillment of medical benefits. In the new case, the right to health, the comprehensive medical coverage of people with disabilities and the right to defense are at stake, more precisely, respect for due process, the latter being the basis for deciding in favor of the defendant.

scholarly journals La cobertura integral de prestaciones a las personas con discapacidad / The comprehensive coverage of benefits for people with disabilities

2018 ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
Ángeles María Báez
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of First Instance

El presente trabajo versará sobre el análisis de una polémica sentencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación en la que se decide a favor de la Obra Social del Poder Judicial de la Nación, la cual había impugnado la resolución que la condenaba a prestar cobertura íntegra a una persona con discapacidad. El fundamento de la Corte: la omisión por parte del Tribunal de Primera Instancia de la aplicación de la resolución OSPJ 822/13 que establece las condiciones de cobertura de la prestación de asistencia domiciliaria de las personas con discapacidad, que es compatible con la Ley 24.901. Sin duda alguna, un caso controvertido en el que se encuentra en juego el derecho a la salud, la protección de las personas con discapacidad y el alcance de la cobertura de las obras sociales.   The present work will deal with the analysis of a controversial sentence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in which it is decided in favor of the Social Work of the Judicial Power of the Nation, which had challenged the resolution that condemned it to provide coverage integrates a person with a disability. The basis of the Court: the omission by the Court of First Instance of the application of the resolution OSPJ 822/13 that establishes the conditions of coverage of the provision of domiciliary assistance for persons with disabilities, which is compatible with Law 24,901. Undoubtedly, a controversial case in which the right to health is at stake, the protection of people with disabilities and the scope of coverage of social works.

scholarly journals El derecho a la salud de personas con discapacidad y su cobertura por parte del Estado / The right to health of people with disabilities and their coverage by the State

2018 ◽  
pp. 171-178
Author(s):  
María Florencia Blanco Pighi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

El derecho a la salud es reconocido por la Constitución Argentina, pero, como todo derecho, no es absoluto. La Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, mediante el fallo en análisis, establece ciertos requisitos para asegurar la cobertura por parte del Estado, de prestaciones que garanticen el acceso a este derecho para personas con discapacidad. El voto en disidencia establece que, muchas veces, apegarse a requisitos formales puede implicar cercenar el goce efectivo del derecho a la salud, que es de carácter constitucional.   The right to health is recognized by the Argentine Constitution, but, as every right, is not absolute. The Supreme Court of Justice, through the sentence to analyze, establishes certain requirements to ensure coverage by the State of benefits that guarantee access to this right for people with disabilities. The dissident vote establishes that, often, adhering to formal requirements may imply clogging the effective enjoyment of the right to health, which is constitutional in nature.

scholarly journals Las sentencias exhortativas de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación a la luz del derecho de ejecución de sentencias. /

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Cynthia Belén Contreras
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Complex Cases ◽  
Sobre Todo ◽  
The Way

Las sentencias exhortativas de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación son un instituto jurídico de reciente y novedosa aparición en nuestro sistema argentino de derecho. Entre los años 2005 a 2012, la Corte Argentina, llegó el punto más álgido en lo que respecta a la producción y dictado de este tipo de sentencias atípicas, sobre todo en casos complejos y de transcendencia pública e institucional que involucraban a su vez derechos fundamentales. Nuestro país, está dando los primeros pasos en lo que respecta al dictado de sentencias exhortativas y en el camino se ha topado con algunos obstáculos al momento de la ejecución de sentencia. Este trabajo propone la identiicación y descripción de dichas dificultades con las que deben lidiar los operadores jurídicos, víctimas y actores a los fines de hacer realidad los derechos declarados en las sentencias exhortativas de la Corte.Abstract The exhortative sentences of the Supreme Court of Justice are a legal institute of recent and novel appearance in our Argentine system of law. From 2005 to 2012, the Argentine Supreme Court reached to the highest point with regard to the production and delivery of this type of atypical sentences, especially in complex cases of public and institutional transcendence which involved fundamental rights. Our country is taking the irst steps regarding the issuance of exhortative sentences and along the way it appears some obstacles at the time of the execution of the sentences. his work proposes the identiication and description of the diiculties with which legal operators, victims and actors must deal with in order to make the rights declared in the Court's exhortative judgments a reality.

scholarly journals Concept of right to life and its protection under the Constitution of India

2019 ◽  
pp. 55-68
Author(s):  
HARSH PATHAK
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Original Sense ◽  
Life Itself ◽  
The Right

The constitution and jurist characterized Article 21 as, “the procedural magna carta, protective of life and liberty”. This right has been held to be the heart of the constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in Indian constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of it. Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e). Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. There would have been no fundamental rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Article will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

scholarly journals El Estado como garante de los derechos de los pueblos originarios en Argentina / The argentinian State as guarantor of aboriginal’s rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 164-171
Author(s):  
María Florencia Blanco Pighi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

Los derechos humanos de los pueblos originarios, entre ellos, el derecho a la salud, son reconocidos por la Constitución Argentina, por tratados internacionales ratificados por nuestro país, por la normativa interna y por las constituciones provinciales. La Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, mediante el fallo en análisis, establece que la protección de estos derechos debe asegurarse por la vía más idónea, y que, al existir una acción de amparo en curso, la medida cautelar de interposición más reciente, debe ser rechazada.   The Argentinian Constitution, the international human rights treaties ratified by Argentina, the argentine internal regulations and the constitution of several provinces, recognize the aboriginal´s human rights, including the right to health. In the judgment in analysis, the Argentinian Supreme Court of Justice, states that the protection of those rights needs to be accomplish by the most suitable way. When a legal protection action is in curse, the most recently filed action must be rejected.

scholarly journals A QUEBRA DE PARADIGMAS DO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL EM DIREITO À SAÚDE E A AUSÊNCIA DA CONSISTÊNCIA TEÓRICA

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (59) ◽  
pp. 377
Author(s):  
Ferado Rister de Sousa LIMA
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Concepts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Public Money ◽  
The Right

RESUMO Objetivo: O estudo objetiva analisar as decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal, com o propósito de identificar julgamentos proferidos no período de 2010 a 2013, e verificar se houve incorporação de novos conceitos sobre o direito à saúde na sua jurisprudência. Metodologia: A metodologia empregada é a pesquisa bibliográfica, por meio da análise de decisões jurisprudenciais do Supremo Tribunal Federal, delimitada ao período de 2010 a 2013. Resultados: A leitura dos acórdãos denota como direta ou indiretamente estão fundamentados na ausência dos parâmetros. É possível também falar-se em novos parâmetros e não em ausência de critérios. Prefere-se a ausência de critérios ante o entendimento de que os rígidos pontos de partida anteriores moldaram por décadas a atuação judicial e a sua retirada acabou fragilizando a argumentação jurídica, a ponto de não se discutirem questões pertinentes. Os acórdãos dispõem em oferecer esperança como fonte de cura. Uma linguagem muito longínqua da ciência médica e sem qualquer critério de gestão do dinheiro público instaurou-se nos novos julgamentos da Corte. A ausência de consistência jurídica fica também evidenciada com a completa despreocupação em enfrentar a argumentação jurídica oferecida pela política. Tudo está tão conforme os novos conceitos que não se justifica argumentar ou enfrentar as teses jurídicas da Administração Pública. Eis o novo paradigma jurisdicional em direito à saúde. Contribuições: A contribuição central do presente trabalho está na análise de decisões da Suprema Corte a fim de identificar o tratamento dado a questões de direito à saúde.Palavras-chave: Ministros proativos; nova racionalidade; jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal; papel do Direito. ABSTRACT Objective: The study aims to analyze the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court, with the purpose of identifying judgments handed down from 2010 to 2013, and to verify whether new concepts about the right to health have been incorporated into its jurisprudence. Methodology: The methodology used is bibliographic research, through the analysis of jurisprudential decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, limited to the period from 2010 to 2013. Results: The reading of the judgments shows how directly or indirectly they are based on the absence of parameters. It is also possible to talk about new parameters and not in the absence of criteria. The absence of criteria is preferred due to the understanding that previous rigid starting points have shaped judicial action for decades and its withdrawal has weakened the legal argument, to the point of not discussing relevant issues. Judgments offer hope as a source of healing. A very distant language of medical science and without any criterion for the management of public money was established in the Court's new judgments. The lack of legal consistency is also evidenced by the complete lack of concern in facing the legal arguments offered by the politics. Everything is so in line with the new concepts that there is no reason to argue or face the legal theses of the Public Administration. This is the new jurisdictional paradigm in the right to health. Contributions:The central contribution of the present paper is the analysis of the Supreme Court decisions in order to identify the treatment given to issues of right to  health. Keywords: Proactive ministers; new rationality; jurisprudence of the Supreme Federal Court; role of law.

Protecting Quasi-Possession of Electricity Supply with the Mandament van Spolie – Has the Supreme Court of Appeal Switched Off this Possibility? [A Discussion of Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v Masinda 2019 5 SA 386 (SCA)]

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-233
Author(s):  
EJ Marais
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Electricity Supply ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Single System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Masinda 2019 5 SA 386 (SCA) (“Masinda”), the Supreme Court of Appeal had to decide whether the mandament van spolie is available for restoring quasi-possession of electricity supply. The respondent used the mentioned supply, which was sourced in contract, at her home. The court ruled that the spoliation remedy does not protect the quasi-possession of rights sourced in contract. For its quasi-possession to enjoy possessory protection, the right must be in the nature of a servitude, be registered or flow from legislation. This emphasis on the source of the right is problematic for two reasons. First, it contradicts certain common-law authorities which reveal that the quasi-possession of electricity supply sourced in contract does, in fact, enjoy protection under the spoliation remedy. This applies as long as the supply is a gebruiksreg (use right) and the spoliatus performs physical acts associated with the right on immovable property. Secondly, (over)emphasising the source of the right potentially undermines various fundamental rights. When the common law is open to several possible interpretations, as seems to be the case with quasi-possession, the supremacy of the Constitution and the single-system-of-law principle require that courts choose the interpretation that upholds (rather than impairs) constitutional rights. In the Masinda case, the court unfortunately opted for an understanding of quasi-possession which seems to undermine the Constitution. For these reasons, the decision is an unwelcome development.

scholarly journals Suplicatorio y política: Praxis parlamentaria y claves del debate doctrinal sobre el control jurisdiccional de la potestad denegatoria de los suplicatorios // Request to waive the Parliamentary Immunity and politics. Parliamentary praxis and keys issues of the doctrinal debate on the judicial review of the parliamentary power of denial the requests

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (103) ◽  
pp. 381
Author(s):  
Kayamba Tshitshi Ndouba
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Parliamentary Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Politics And Law

Resumen:El presente artículo aborda algunos problemas entre política y derecho que genera la decisión parlamentaria en la concesión o denegación de los suplicatorios. Por ello, analiza la praxis de los suplicatorios tramitados por el Congreso de los diputados y el Senado hasta la fecha, poniendo énfasis en la doctrina emanada de las decisiones adoptadas por las comisiones parlamentarias competentes. Para profundizar en la interacción entre suplicatorio, política y derecho, el artículo indaga en los pasos cualitativos y saltos prominentes de la evolución de la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre los límites de la facultad de las Cámaras para conceder o denegar el suplicatorio. Recaba y sistematiza el tratamiento académico de los puntos clave del debate emanado de estos sucesivos pronunciamientos del TC: las implicaciones de esta jurisprudencia en relación a los postulados constitucionales de independencia y ordenación de los poderes del Estado, las definiciones de criterios jurídicos que han de inspirar y guiar a las Cámaras para autorizar o denegar el suplicatorio, la concreción del modelo y la estructura de ponderación aplicables en los casos de colisión de dos derechos fundamentales (en este caso, los arts. 23 y 24 de la Constitución española [CE]). Summary:I. Praxis of the Parliamentary Procedure for the Waiver of Immunity. II. The Request to Waive the Parliamentary Immunity Before the Constitutional Court. Issues With Undeniable Constitutional Significance. III. The Constitutional Court and the Judicial Review of the Requests to Waive the Parliamentary Immunity. 1. Interna corporis acta and fundamental rights. 2. «Trial of opportunity» and the formal «requirement of a statement of reasons». 3. The degree of providing an adequate statement of reasons in the denial court’s decision. 4. The question of weighing up different values against one another: fundamental rights and the Parliament members’ prerogatives. IV. The Doctrinal Debate on the Constitutional Court’s Jurisprudence. 1. Emptying the parliamentarian immunity and the issue of «checks and balance» of State’s constitutional powers.2. Opposing the parliamentary immunity and the right of judicial action: the issue of preferential treatment. Concluding: Judicial Review or Political Review? Abstract:This article addresses the existing problems generated by the parliamentary decision in the granting or denial of requests made by the Supreme Court to the Parliament, in order to remove an MP’s parliamentary immunity, so that (s)he can be prosecuted. Such problems are studied both from the perspective of law and of political science. To this end, this paper analyzes and updates the research done to date about the parliamentary praxis on this issue, highlighting the doctrine which emanates from the decisions adopted by the competent parliamentary committees. In order to understand well the interaction between the praxis, politics and law, this paper also examines the most prominent changes and milestones in the evolution of the constitutional case law on the limits of the Parliament’s capacity to grant or to deny the Supreme Court request asking Parliament to remove an MP’s parliamentary immunity so that (s)he can be prosecuted. For this purpose, the paper systematizes the key points of the academic debate concerning the successive decisions of the Constitutional court: the repercussions of this jurisprudence vis-à-vis the constitutional postulates of separation and independence of State powers, the legal criteria that such postulates must inspire and in order to guide the Parliament in its decision to grant or deny the petition, the concretization of the model and the balance needed in cases of collision of two fundamental rights (in this case, articles 23 and 24 of the Spanish Constitution).

Cow Vigilantism and India’s Evolving Human Rights Framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravindra Pratap
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
Human Right To Food

AbstractThe paper seeks to understand India’s evolving rights framework in the backdrop of cow vigilantism. To that end it discusses the human right to food and nutrition, international discussion on minority rights issues in India and the relevant legal and constitutional discussion in India. It finds that India’s rights framework has evolved since proclamation of India as a Republic in 1950 based on the supremacy of its written constitution containing fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy interpreted finally by its Supreme Court. The government took a wise step by not challenging a judicial rebalancing of the rights framework in response to certain executive measures and the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to include not only the right to the choice of food but also the right to privacy and thereby underscored the obligation of the State to compensate the victims of cow vigilante violence. However, a constitutional polity and secular state would do all well if it did any further necessary to better guard against any recurrence of the breach of civil peace, much less violence, on purely secular issues, including by strengthening and increasing dialogue with all representative communities in all its decision-making on such matters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document