Constitutional Court dismisses appeal for lack of congruence between judgment and constitutional rights.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible due to a lack of congruence between the lower court's judgment and the constitutional rights invoked. The applicant argued that the dismissal violated Article 24.1 of the Constitution, but the Court found the contested decision did not infringe upon the right to effective judicial protection. Consequently, the appeal was rejected because the challenged ruling was not the specific act causing the alleged constitutional violation.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 24.1 C.E.; Art. 53.1 C.E.: The Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to review a judgment when the applicant fails to demonstrate that the contested decision itself violates the right to effective judicial protection, as the violation must stem from the specific act challenged.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
Esta resolución es accesible en formato PDF:
Identificación
Órgano
Sección Segunda
Magistrados
Don Francisco Rubio Llorente, don Antonio Truyol Serra y don Miguel Rodríguez-Piñero y Bravo-Ferrer.
Número y fecha BOE
Tipo y número de registro
Recurso de amparo 1286-1987
Fecha de resolución
13/01/1988
Síntesis y resumen
Síntesis Descriptiva
Acordando la inadmisión a trámite del recurso de amparo 1.286/1987
Resumen
Inadmisión. Tutela efectiva de Jueces y Tribunales: congruencia de la Sentencia recurrida. Contenido constitucional de la demanda: carencia.
Don Angel Martín Sánchez interpone recurso de amparo contra Sentencia de la Magistratura de Trabajo núm. 2 de La Coruña, confirmada en casación por la Sala Sexta del Tribunal Supremo, en autos de reclamación por despido. Invoca la vulneración del
derecho consagrado en el art. 24.1 C.E.
containers
Visualización
containers
[PDF] https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/PDF/1988/1988_00044-1987_01286.pdf