There were no surprises. As expected, the plenary session of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), with the support of a majority of 15 of its 21 local residents, approved the ruling on the Government’s Housing Act, warning that the plans of the coalition government violate the constitutional division of powers in this matter. The six disapproving members, who were the same ones who were in favor of a more accommodating report with the Preliminary Draft, will present a private vote according to sources consulted by El Periódico de España.
In very harsh terms, the text goes so far as to declare that the Executive’s plans, which include some intervention in the rental market in the so-called ‘stressed areas’, could cause legal uncertainty by ‘expropriating’ the powers of the autonomous communities.
About price control, criticizes the limited scope and the “cumbersome” nature of the proposed rules, adding that, “born to combat the effects of the pandemic, its maintenance when it has diminished may not be sufficient.” And what’s more, the text states that “the burden of capacity” brought about by two of the final provisions of the Preliminary Draft – the First and the Fifth – is not faced by the Public Administrations, but by private landlords which are not adequately compensated by tax incentives. “
Response to the Government
The opinion is not binding on the Government, as several members of the Executive and the President himself, Pedro Sánchez, have been careful to underline since it became known that the vision of the governing body of the judges is not going to be complacent with the Preliminary Draft. However, the position of the Judiciary has caused a delay in the calendar for the time being plans to take this matter to its parliamentary process, in addition to reasons for criticizing the opposition.
In fact, part of the report that came up in the plenary this Thursday seems to respond to government protests remember that his advisory role “It does not depend on the importance or the will of the body requesting the report, in this case, the Government of the Nation, aspect of which it does not have any capacity to dispose, but of the provisions of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, whose interpretation (…) has been accepted peacefully by the various governments and up to the present moment. “
The 59-page text emphasizes that the “expropriation of regional regulation by the state legislature will undoubtedly cause a situation of great legal uncertainty, as it results in it is definitely difficult to determine which rule will apply, the state or the autonomous, when they do not completely agree with each other “. As an example of this overlap of powers, the text mentions the creation of a new Register of leases.
The draft, which was submitted for debate today, was prepared by councilors Enrique Lucas and José Antonio Ballestero – appointed on a proposal from the PNV and the PP – after the same majority knocked out a first version of the also vocal and former deputy on 14 January. . socialist Álvaro Cuesta, who ratified the project in general terms.
Cuesta and the rest of the members who signed against the opinion, Mar Cabrejas, Clara Martínez de Careaga, Rafael Mozo, Concepción Sáez and Pilar Sepúlveda – all of whom belong to the progressive sector of the CGPJ – will expand a private voice. Sources from the body point out to this newspaper that the debate took place with a technical whole, perhaps something more ‘hard’ on the part of the dissident sector, and that there may also be some simultaneous voting that refers to technical issues , without discussing the general vision of the opinion.
regional ownership
For the speakers, housing is a matter of regional ownership, in terms of section 18.1. third of the Constitution and the statutes of autonomy. That’s why they understand it the provisional concept should be limited to the incidental scope of regional competences and the government’s plans should not go beyond “a law on the basic conditions of the right to housing, its promotion and protection, or, as the title implies, a law on the right to housing, but not, strictly speaking, ‘the housing’ law ‘or’ the right to housing ”.
Nor does the guarantee of equality, according to the CGPJ, authorize the unnecessary overlap on the current autonomous legislation of another state which to a large extent “comes to duplicate or replace it or to cover alleged gaps in regional legislation” as stated in the explanatory statement of the Preliminary Draft promoted by the government of Pedro Sánchez.
In any case, the report warns that, despite the Government’s plans with this law, the autonomous powers in the establishment of the rental index and highlighted residential market areas, which are two of the basic issues contained in the Preliminary Draft, will decisively determine the application of the state regulation.
need is not justified
In addition, the there is no justification for the necessity of the measures. For this reason, members add that similar measures in the countries around us – and even in ours – have “achieved failures that are evident through knowledge.”
Related news
They say that too the preliminary draft also does not contain safeguard clauses, What would it be like to set a temporary period of application of the measures? restrictive, although the Government’s attempt to intervene in the case of the so-called ‘big forks’. At this point, the analysis of the CGPJ acknowledges that “the opportunity of the norm, on which conflicting positions are based, can only be assessed once it has been applied in practice“.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the text confirms that the link between the extension of the lease and the location of the property in a strained residential market is “harmful and unnecessary”. The vocals add that “perhaps it will be sufficient to generalize a percentage limitation to the new rent without linking to any of the complex circumstances to which the rule refers, to limit it only to areas with a stressed residential market and to accommodate the new extension to the one previously provided for in section 10 “of the current law.
Reference-www.elperiodico.com