The government denied appeals to the court and the courts went on strike – 11/27/2018



[ad_1]

In a new chapter that adds institutional tension, and hours in which the Supreme Court is issued on key issues, as if judges had to pay the gains, the government denied the funds that asked the High Court for 20% treatment. expected increase in salary recomposition of 2018 with judicial employees.

Warned about the situation, advanced by Clarin, of the Union of Justice Officials of the Nation, led by Julio Piumato, launched a mobilization for this afternoon at the Palace of Justice and confirmed a stop for this Thursday. "We reject this blatant violation of the independence of the Judiciary. Until that is decided, we will paralyze justice," Piumato said. Clarin.

Through a footnote signed by the chief of staff, Marcos Peña; The government apologizes for failing to respond before the Court's $ 1,605 billion peso budget increase request in October after agreeing with the courts with a 40 percent nominal salary increase. "It was not answered earlier because the recently approved 2019 Budget was under treatment," explains the Cabinet letter to Supreme Court justices.

In the concrete response to the request, Peña notes "the effort made by the Government, provincial governments and other powers of the State" and maintains that "the modification of the budget items, as requested, strongly affects Treasury resources"

In this regard, the head of the Cabinet asks that "within a framework of shared efforts," the Court must decide that the 10% salary increase planned for December 2018, "To be granted in the next fiscal year". That is, already with the application of the new Budget. "In February, like the National Administration," they added from the government.

Meanwhile, Peña announced that to accompany the 10 percent increase arranged by the Court for the month of October, will modify the games of the current exercise.

As published ClarinThe issue of funds that the Supreme Court needed was at the lunch table that Mauricio Macri had with Supreme Court President Carlos Rosenkrantz earlier this month.

Sources close to wrestling say that Peña's measure logically did not go down well with the Supreme Court and slipped past what the Supreme Court will decide on Tuesday if judges appointed as of January 1, 2017 are expected to pay Profits as established by Law 27,346 promoted by this Government, or should be benefited by the regime enjoyed by the senior magistrates.

These consulted voices argue that it could be retaliation for a possible setback for the Government in the decision to adjust the pension which, according to the timetable established by the Court, will be dealt with on 10 December. "Marcos is enthusiastic because it goes against the failure of retirees and resources," said judicial sources.

What do you mean? In the case of a retiree, Luis Blanco, who sued the State to update his salaries based on the Basic Index of Industrial and Construction Wages (ISBIC) and not with Ripte, the Average Tax Remuneration of Stable Workers, which is used to update the non-taxable minimum and the Income Tax scales. The government resorted to this index calculating asset readjustments in Historical Repair.

It turns out that Blanco obtained favorable judgments – that is, that is paid with the ISBIC – before the sanction of that law in 2016. Therefore, the definition of the Supreme Court of Justice could affect tens of thousands of retirees in his same conditions. To the government, meanwhile, can affect the budget, since an update with this index generates bigger increments for the Ripte.

Among the many tugs that occur between the changes that took place in the Court after the presumption of Carlos Rosenkrantz in the presidency and the departure of Ricardo Lorenzetti, the package of key issues that must define the Tribunal and in some way impact on the Government includes the constitutionality of application of 2×1 in the cause of crimes against humanity, vote scheduled for December 4; and the law of slogans in Santa Cruz, seven days later.

In this context, the courts will press the Court to comply with the agreement. But they blame the government. "This goes beyond a question of the government to a salary agreement, this government promised to comply with the decisions of the Court and now wants to set the agenda, we ask that the Court ratify the salary increase with the agreed," added Piumato.

[ad_2]

Source link