The bond swap announced at the end of March by the nation’s economy minister Sergio Massa continues adding episodes. The norm promulgated by the Executive Branch obligated state agencies to “proceed to the sale or auction of its holdings of national government securities denominated and payable in US dollars” and exchange them for other nominees “in pesos to be issued by the National Treasury”.
The controversy arose around the financial operation, given that it involves the Anses Sustainability Guarantee Fund (FGS), added a judicial presentation made by the macrista deputy Graciela Ocaña together with other legislators from her bank and a group of four retirees.
The amparo appeal before the Federal Administrative Litigation Court requested that, as an urgent precautionary measure and order the suspension of the provisions of Decree 163/2023 and in articles. 2 and 3 of Decree 164/2023, through which the exchange of bonds was regulated.
The plaintiffs appeared before the courts “to protect the interests of retirees and pensioners” and in order to keep them out of the exchange operation of the Anses funds.
The response of justice was forceful. Firstly, he is unaware of the legitimacy of the nation’s deputies to set themselves up as plaintiffs, and secondly, he points out that it is impossible to determine the reliable damage to the funds of the pension system, and therefore the precautionary measure is not relevant.
The justice indicated that the condition of retiree “without the demonstration of a concrete damage, is insufficient to sustain the legitimacy for the purposes of challenging” the bond exchange.
Indeed, the Federal Administrative Litigation Court No. 1 stated that the condition of national deputies “does not legitimize them to act to protect the division of powers.”
Likewise, and in relation to the claim of the retirees who claim to be affected, the court indicated that their status as beneficiaries of ANSES “does not confer sufficient legitimacy to apply to the jurisdiction, since the invocation of such a condition without the demonstration of a specific damage, is insufficient to sustain the legitimacy for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of a norm.
Finally, the court stated that “to the extent that the plaintiff does not demonstrate the existence of a specific, immediate and substantial interest of her own, it is appropriate to reject the action attempted in limine«. And he added that “any interest is not enough, but a qualified interest becomes essential.”
To comment on this note you must have your digital access.
Subscribe to add your opinion!
Subscribe