Post by account_disabled on Mar 8, 2024 22:29:19 GMT -5
Ask the CJEU if the scant explanation given by the legislator regarding said exemption is really a proper justification
The judges once again question whether the exoneration of unsatisfied liabilities provided for in the bankruptcy reform does not extend to public credit debts . In this sense, the magistrate of the 19th Commercial Court of Madrid , Francisco José Soriano , has raised a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This magistrate is already a repeat offender in these types of issues. Not in vain, he was a speaker on three others raised by the Eighth Section of the Provincial Court of Alicante on the same issue and which generated a great debate in the legal community.
In conversation with Economist & Jurist he highlights Fax Lists that "in this third preliminary question in the order of September 4 we cite the others filed by other judicial bodies , the previous two of which I was the speaker at the Provincial Court referred to the previous law, not to the current one. Then there is another from a Commercial Court in Alicante, another from a Commercial Court in Barcelona and another from a Court in Oporto.”
However, he highlights that these are issues that do not coincide . “The ones in Alicante go for responsibility derived from the Tax Agency, the one in Barcelona goes another way, just as the one in Porto refers above all to Portuguese law specifically.”
From his point of view, “in this preliminary question, basically the questions I raise are quite direct. The first of them focuses on whether or not the explanation given by the Spanish legislator is a proper justification to exclude public credit from the exoneration . There he says that the exceptions are based on the special relevance "of having a fair and supportive society based on the rule of law."
The judges once again question whether the exoneration of unsatisfied liabilities provided for in the bankruptcy reform does not extend to public credit debts . In this sense, the magistrate of the 19th Commercial Court of Madrid , Francisco José Soriano , has raised a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This magistrate is already a repeat offender in these types of issues. Not in vain, he was a speaker on three others raised by the Eighth Section of the Provincial Court of Alicante on the same issue and which generated a great debate in the legal community.
In conversation with Economist & Jurist he highlights Fax Lists that "in this third preliminary question in the order of September 4 we cite the others filed by other judicial bodies , the previous two of which I was the speaker at the Provincial Court referred to the previous law, not to the current one. Then there is another from a Commercial Court in Alicante, another from a Commercial Court in Barcelona and another from a Court in Oporto.”
However, he highlights that these are issues that do not coincide . “The ones in Alicante go for responsibility derived from the Tax Agency, the one in Barcelona goes another way, just as the one in Porto refers above all to Portuguese law specifically.”
From his point of view, “in this preliminary question, basically the questions I raise are quite direct. The first of them focuses on whether or not the explanation given by the Spanish legislator is a proper justification to exclude public credit from the exoneration . There he says that the exceptions are based on the special relevance "of having a fair and supportive society based on the rule of law."