Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
AUTO 140/2012 ECLI:ES:TC:2012:140A AI generated

Constitutional Court dismisses case due to magistrate's prior involvement in legislative report requiring abstention.

Case Number AUTO 140/2012
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Spain (ES)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Constitutional Court formally dismissed the unconstitutionality case against the Civil Code amendment regarding same-sex marriage. The decision was based on a communication from a magistrate who previously served as President of the Judicial Council and authored the legislative report for the contested law. Consequently, the court accepted his statutory grounds for abstention under the Organic Law of the Judiciary, removing him from the case's knowledge.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 80 LOTC; Art. 219.4 LOPJ: A magistrate must abstain from judging a case if they previously participated in the legislative report or drafting of the contested law, as this constitutes a conflict of interest under the specified statutory causes.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial abstention legislative report conflict of interest Constitutional Court same-sex marriage law Organic Law Judiciary recourse of unconstitutionality

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 80 of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Tribunal
219 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, en relación con el art. 80 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Constitucional.
Art. 219.4 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary
art. 219 LOPJ

Cited Case Law

AI generated
ATC 280/2006
Constitutional Court accepts a judge's abstention due to prior involvement in the contested decree's report.
ATC 46/2012
Constitutional Court grants abstention to judge who previously issued advisory opinion on same law.
AI generated
SENTENCIA 198/2012
Spanish Constitutional Court declares same-sex marriage law constitutional, rejecting arguments on gender equality and family structure.
AUTO 12/2008
Constitutional Court dismisses judge's question on civil code marriage article due to lack of standing.
SENTENCIA 44/2023
Spanish Constitutional Court dismisses parliamentary challenge to abortion law as constitutional.
AUTO 418/2005
Constitutional question dismissed due to loss of object when underlying marriage case was withdrawn. The court extinguished the constitutional question because the marriage proceeding was terminated by withdrawal, leaving no subject matter for the constitutional review. The court ruled that the extinction of the lower court process causes the constitutional question to expire by loss of object. The court held that the constitutional question must be extinguished when the underlying proceeding is terminated by withdrawal, as the existence of the lower process is a prerequisite for the constitutional review. The court cited Article 163 of the Constitution and established that the extinction of the lower process leads to the expiration of the constitutional question. The court dismissed the constitutional question because the underlying marriage case was withdrawn, resulting in the loss of object for the constitutional review. The court ruled that the constitutional question must be extinguished when the underlying proceeding is terminated by withdrawal, as the existence of the lower process is a prerequisite for the constitutional review. The court cited Article 163 of the Constitution and established that the extinction of the lower process leads to the expiration of the constitutional question. The court dismissed the constitutional question because the underlying marriage case was withdrawn, resulting in the loss of object for the constitutional review.
SENTENCIA 99/2019
Constitutional Court rejects challenge to registry law allowing minors to change sex records without parental consent.

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 140/2012, de 4 de julio de 2012. Recurso de inconstitucionalidad 6864-2005. Acepta una abstención en el recurso de inconstitucionalidad 6864-2005, promovido por más de cincuenta Diputados del Grupo Popular del Congreso de los Diputados, en relación con la Ley 13/2005, de 1 de julio, por la que se modifica el Código civil en materia de derecho a contraer matrimonio.

AUTO

I. Antecedentes

1. Ante este Tribunal se sigue el recurso de inconstitucionalidad núm. 6864-2005, interpuesto por más de cincuenta diputados del Grupo Popular del Congreso de los Diputados contra la Ley 13/2005, de 1 de julio, por la que se modifica el Código civil en materia de derecho a contraer matrimonio.

2. Mediante escrito fechado el 3 de julio de 2012 el Magistrado de este Tribunal don Francisco José Hernando Santiago expresó que en su anterior condición de Presidente del Consejo General del Poder Judicial suscribió el informe sobre el proyecto legislativo de reforma del Código civil en materia de matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo aprobado por el Pleno de dicho órgano constitucional celebrado el 26 de enero de 2005; y que era por ello que, considerando los precedentes de este Tribunal (en particular el ATC 280/2006, de 18 de julio) entendía que el referido hecho pudiera integrar las causas de abstención 13 y 16 del art. 219 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, en relación con el art. 80 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Constitucional.

II. Fundamentos jurídicos

Único.

Vista la comunicación efectuada por don Francisco José Hernando Santiago, Magistrado de este Tribunal, en virtud de lo previsto en los arts. 80 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Constitucional y 221.4 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (LOPJ) procede estimar justificada la causa de abstención formulada, puesto que el mencionado Magistrado intervino, en calidad de Presidente del Consejo General del Poder Judicial, en la elaboración del informe previo emitido por dicho órgano en relación con la ley impugnada en este recurso de inconstitucionalidad, lo que puede integrarse en las causas 13 y 16 del art. 219 LOPJ (en idéntico sentido al presente, el ATC 280/2006, de 18 de julio; y, en relación con dictámenes suscritos en condición de Presidenta de un consejo consultivo autonómico, por todos, el ATC 46/2012, de 13 de marzo).

Por todo lo expuesto, el Pleno

ACUERDA

Estimar la causa de abstención formulada por don Francisco José Hernando Santiago en el recurso de inconstitucionalidad núm. 6864-2005, apartándole definitivamente del conocimiento del mismo.

Madrid, a cuatro de julio de dos mil doce.