Jurisdiction | |||
---|---|---|---|
Title | Untitled | ||
Decision Number | 243 | GLIN ID | 150147 |
Court | Supreme Court of Justice | Decision Issue Date | 12/12/2000 |
Judges | |||
Plaintiffs / Petitioners | Miguel Talavera García (Sociedad Fondo de los Trabajadores Azucarero, FONDOAZUCAR) | ||
Defendants / Respondents | Alberto Larios Morales (Alcalde Municipal de Nandaime) | ||
Publication |
Boletin Judicial Find Additional Information
|
||
Publication Issue Number | Publication Date | 12/12/2000 | |
Publication Specifics | |||
Related Legal Resources | No related legal resources available | ||
Summary (English) |
Decision 243 of 12 December 2000. Miguel Talavera Garcia, attorney of the Fund for Sugar Workers (abbreviated in Spanish as FONDOAZUCAR) brought Remedy of Amparo against Alberto Larios Morales, municipal mayor of Nandaime, who pretened to obligate them to pay taxes contrary to the Law, because they considered that the tax assessment is not a legal document to base the payment of real estate taxes (abbreviated in Spanish as IBI). The payment of these taxes injured the free enterprise of private property because the only branch of the state empowered to resolve taxes is the National Assembly. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the mayor’s office overstepped its limits, because it did not observe the procedure of the Law, violating the Constitutional rights of the plaintiff as indicated by the plaintiff. Therefore the judges of the Constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice resolved TO ADMIT THE REMEDY OF AMPARO.
|
||
(Spanish) |
Sentencia 243 del 12 de Diciembre del 2000. El señor Miguel Talavera García apoderado especial Judicial de la Sociedad denominada Fondo de los Trabajadores Azucarero, Sociedad Civil por acciones (FONDOAZUCAR) interpone Recurso de Amparo en contra del señor Alberto Larios Morales, Alcalde Municipal de Nandaime, quien pretende obligarles a pagar un impuesto contrario a lo ordenado en la Ley ya que el Avalúo Fiscal, amen de no ser el documento legal, no tiene efecto para el pago del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles (IBI), llegando inclusive a demandarles por la vía ejecutiva, pretendiendo aplicar un impuesto confiscatorio, que atenta contra la propiedad privada la libre empresa; facultades de la Asamblea Nacional, quien es el único Poder del Estado especialmente facultado para la legislación de impuestos. La Sala constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia considera que la municipalidad del caso, fue mas allá de sus funciones, ya que no se observo el procedimiento establecido por la Ley, para incrementar el impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, ocasionado la violación de los preceptos constitucionales, señalados por el recurrente. Por tanto los Magistrados de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia resuelven HA LUGAR AL RECURSO DE AMPARO.
|
||
Full Texts | Spanish | Full Text 1 (44.08kb) (PDF Help) | |
Full Text Security Policy | |||
External References | No external references available | ||
Subject Terms |
Amparo ;
Find Additional Information
Civil procedure ;
Find Additional Information
Constitutional rights ;
Find Additional Information
Government employees ;
Find Additional Information
Judicial review of administrative acts ;
Real property ;
Find Additional Information
Real property tax ;
Find Additional Information
Remedies ;
Find Additional Information
Taxation ;
Find Additional Information
|