Suchergebnisse

This paper is focused on the position of the Spanish Constitutional Court on the control of the requirements that have to be met in order to open exceptional legislative procedures in accordance with the Spanish Parliamentary Regulations, in particular, regarding the abbreviated one single reading procedure. For this purpose, the requirements enabling the abbreviated procedure and the consequences stemming from its applicationfor ius in officium are subject to study in the first place, highlighting the limited, and sometimes misleading, statements of Spanish doctrine on the matter. Then, we will approach, on the one hand, the relevance of the legislative decisions adopted in this extraordinary way, and on the other, the parliamentary practice on this matter carried out to date. We also will expose the latest doctrine of the Spanish High Court about the nature and simplicity of formulation of the initiatives processed by this special channel, and finally will present a personal contribution about the constitutional limits of the requirements enabling this abbreviated procedure. ; In questo articolo si esamina la posizione della Corte Costituzionale Spagnola in merito alla supervisione dei presupposti abilitanti previsti dal Regolamento Parlamentare Spagnolo per l'avvio di procedimenti legislativi straordinari, in particolare, per il procedimento abbreviato mediante lettura unica. Per questo motivo, analizzeremo in primo luogo le circostanze che permettono l'avvio di detto iter procedurale abbreviato e le conseguenze derivanti dalla sua applicazione nel ius in officium, mettendo in evidenza le scarse occasioni in cui la dottrina spagnola si pronuncia in merito e i pareri, in alcune occasioni inaccurati, espressi a tal proposito. Di seguito verrà esaminata, da una parte, la rilevanza delle decisioni legislative adottate attraverso questo iter straordinario e, dall'altra, la prassi parlamentare finora adottata al riguardo. Successivamente, analizzeremo i pronunciamenti più recenti della Corte Costituzionale Spagnola sulla natura e la semplicità di formulazione delle iniziative sottoposte a questo iter speciale, per poi esporre una tesi personale in merito ai limiti costituzionali dei presupposti abilitanti di detto procedimento abbreviato.

Summary:1. COMPETENT BODIES TO DECIDE THE PROCESS OF SINGLE READING. 1.1 The competences of the Table and the limits of the enabling circumstances. 1.2 The procedural conditions of the decision of the Full House. 2. THE PROCEDURAL MOMENT OF THE DECISION TO OPT FOR A SINGLE READING: AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. 3. HOW TO MAKE THE DECISION TO PROCEED WITH SINGLE READING. 3.1 The value of parliamentary precedent. 3.2 The dichotomy simple majority vs reinforced majority. 4. CONCLUSIONS. 5. Bibliography.AbstractThe article 150 of the Rules of Congress of Deputies establishes that, if proposed by the Table of the House, and once heard by the all Party Assembly, the Full House can agree to process an initiative directly and in a single reading. We will also analyse, on one hand, whether the option to choose this abbreviated legal channel is simply a political judgement which the Full House should adopt, and thus comply or not with the task which the Parliamentary Rules has entrusted to the Table of the House. On the other hand we will study whether the Full House can finally decide to process a particular initiative through this legal channel or if the previous proposal to the Table of the House is necessary, and whether this governmental body should comply -with the production of a strictly techno/juridical judgement- to the proposals established by juridical order for the processing of a legislative initiative using the procedure of a single reading. For this reason we will study whether the proposal for process by single reading by the Table is obligatory or not, even in the case in which after being seen by the all Party Assembly it is verified that the Plenary will vote in majority in favour of implementing this abbreviated legislative procedure. Also, we will undertake a detailed analysis of the procedural moment in which the process of an initiative with a single reading should be decided, and thus present alternative solutions which, to our judgement, are more appropriate and compatible with the current Parliamentary Rules. Finally, we will undertake an exhaustive examination of the value acquired by the parliamentary precedent in this type of abbreviated legislative procedure and show the level of relevance reached by the existing dichotomy between simple and absolute parliamentary majorities with respect to decision making relative to the adoption of this legal channel. ; El artículo 150 del Reglamento del Congreso de los Diputados establece que, cuando la naturaleza de un proyecto o proposición de ley tomada en consideración lo aconseje o la simplicidad de su formulación lo permita, el Pleno de la Cámara, a propuesta de la Mesa, oída la Junta de Portavoces, podrá acordar que se tramite directamente y en lectura única. En este trabajo se analiza, de una parte, si la decisión de optar por este cauce procesal abreviado es un juicio meramente político que debe adoptar el órgano plenario y, si al hacerlo de ese modo, se está dando cumplimiento o no al cometido que el Reglamento Parlamentario encomienda a la Mesa de la Cámara. Concretamente, examinamos si para que el Pleno pueda finalmente decidir que la tramitación de una concreta iniciativa sea a través de esta vía procesal extraordinaria es inexcusable la propuesta previa de la Mesa de la Cámara y si este órgano de gobierno puede y debe revisar la concurrencia de los presupuestos habilitantes previstos por el Reglamento Parlamentario antes de hacer la propuesta. Proponemos al respecto una reinterpretación del alcance de esta facultad de la Mesa separándonos del criterio doctrinal mayoritario. Asimismo, acometemos un análisis detallado de la fase del procedimiento en la que se debe decidir la tramitación de una iniciativa por el procedimiento en lectura única para, seguidamente, plantear aquellas soluciones alternativas que, en nuestro criterio, resultan más oportunas y compatibles con la actual redacción del Reglamento Parlamentario. Finalmente se analiza si la decisión que adopta cada una de las Cámaras acerca de la tramitación de una iniciativa legislativa por esta vía procesal abreviada en un determinado momento y ante la concurrencia de unas concretas circunstancias vincula o no a la otra Cámara con respecto a esa misma iniciativa. Estudiaremos, asimismo, el valor que adquiere el precedente parlamentario en relación a otras iniciativas de similar condición y pondremos de manifiesto la relevancia que alcanza la dicotomía existente entre mayorías simples y reforzadas con respecto a la toma de decisiones relativas a la adopción de este cauce procesal extraordinario.