Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
AUTO 163/2005 ECLI:ES:TC:2005:163A AI generated

Constitutional Court accepts judges' abstention due to prior involvement in similar unconstitutionality question.

Case Number AUTO 163/2005
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Spain (ES)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court accepted the formal request for two judges to abstain from deliberating on a specific unconstitutionality question. The judges cited their prior participation in a similar question regarding the same law before the Supreme Court as the justification. The Court ruled that this prior involvement constituted a valid cause for abstention under the relevant judicial statutes.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 219.11 LOPJ; Art. 80 LOTC: Judges may abstain from a constitutional question if they previously participated in a similar question on the same matter before another court.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial abstention unconstitutionality question prior involvement conflict of interest Constitutional Court procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 219.11 LOPJ
Art. 80 LOTC
Vistas las comunicaciones efectuadas por don Ramón Rodríguez Arribas y don Pascual Sala Sánchez, Magistrados de este Tribunal Constitucional, en virtud de lo previsto en los arts. 80 LOTC y 221.4 LOPJ, se estima justificada la causa de abstención
art. 31.3 de la Constitución Española
70 de la Ley 27/1992, 24 de noviembre, puertos del Estado y de la marina mercante, en la redacción dada por la Ley 62/1997, de 26 de diciembre, por presunta vulneración del art. 31.3 de la Constitución Española.
arts. 80 LOTC
Vistas las comunicaciones efectuadas por don Ramón Rodríguez Arribas y don Pascual Sala Sánchez, Magistrados de este Tribunal Constitucional, en virtud de lo previsto en los arts. 80 LOTC y 221.4 LOPJ, se estima justificada la causa de abstención

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Auto 6277/2002
AI generated
AUTO 162/2005
Constitutional Court accepts judges' abstention from a constitutional question they originally proposed.
AUTO 159/2005
Constitutional Court accepts judges' abstention due to prior involvement in similar constitutional question.
AUTO 165/2010
Constitutional question dismissed as the challenged tax provision was already declared unconstitutional by a later ruling.
AUTO 159/2010
Constitutional question dismissed because the challenged law was already declared unconstitutional in a prior ruling.
AUTO 160/2010
Constitutional question dismissed due to prior ruling nullifying the challenged tax provision. The court extinguished the question because the legal provision was already declared unconstitutional and void in a previous decision, rendering the current constitutional doubt moot. The procedural outcome was the extinction of the constitutional question 4108-2010. The material facts involve a lower court raising a constitutional challenge regarding Article 9.3 of the Constitution against a specific tax measure in the Ley 55/1999. The court decided to dismiss the question because the Supreme Court had already declared the exact same provision unconstitutional and null in STC 74/2010, which took effect immediately upon publication, thereby removing the legal basis for the new challenge. The legal rule established is that a constitutional question must be extinguished if the challenged norm has already been declared unconstitutional and void in a prior judgment with res judicata effect. The keywords are constitutional question, extinction, prior ruling, res judicata, tax law, constitutional challenge, mootness. My client represents a lower court that raised a constitutional question regarding a specific tax provision in the Ley 55/1999, which was previously declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a different case. The opposing party argues that the new challenge is necessary because the specific wording of the law was modified by a subsequent amendment, yet the core constitutional issue remains identical to the earlier ruling. The government contends that the new challenge should be admitted to ensure uniformity, but the lower court insists on re-examining the matter due to the legislative changes. What can I do? Is this possible?

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Pleno. Auto 163/2005, de 19 de abril de 2005. Cuestión de inconstitucionalidad 1418-2003. Acepta una abstención en la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad 1418-2003, planteada por la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de la Audiencia Nacional, en relación con diversos apartados de la Ley 27/1992, de puertos del Estado y de la marina mercante.

AUTO

I. Antecedentes

1. En la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad núm. 1418-2003 planteada por la Sección Octava de la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de la Audiencia Nacional se cuestionan los apartados 1 y 2 del art. 70 de la Ley 27/1992, 24 de noviembre, puertos del Estado y de la marina mercante, en la redacción dada por la Ley 62/1997, de 26 de diciembre, por presunta vulneración del art. 31.3 de la Constitución Española.

2. Mediante sendos escritos fechados el día 12 de abril de 2005 los Magistrados don Ramón Rodríguez Arribas y don Pascual Sala Sánchez comunicaron a los efectos oportunos que se abstenían de intervenir en la deliberación y votación de la indicada cuestión de inconstitucionalidad, de conformidad con el art. 219.11º de la LOPJ, al haber formado parte del órgano judicial que planteó cuestión de inconstitucionalidad similar en el mismo tema debatido.

II. Fundamentos jurídicos

Único.

Vistas las comunicaciones efectuadas por don Ramón Rodríguez Arribas y don Pascual Sala Sánchez, Magistrados de este Tribunal Constitucional, en virtud de lo previsto en los arts. 80 LOTC y 221.4 LOPJ, se estima justificada la causa de abstención

formulada, puesto que los mencionados Magistrados han formado parte de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo que, con fecha de 7 de noviembre de 2002, planteó la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad núm. 6277-2002 sobre los apartados 1 y 2 del art. 70 de la

Ley 27/1992, 24 de noviembre, de puertos del Estado y de la marina mercante, en su redacción originaria.

Por lo expuesto, el Pleno

ACUERDA

Estimar la causa de abstención formulada por los Excmos. Srs. don Ramón Rodríguez Arribas y don Pascual Sala Sánchez en la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad núm. 1418-2003, apartándoles definitivamente de la referida cuestión.

Madrid, a diecinueve de abril de dos mil cinco.