EXP.
No. PUNO
02693-2010-PA/TC
ARTEMIO Mamani Mamani
RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Lima (Arequipa), 21 September 2010 SEEN
The constitutional tort action brought by Don Artemio Mamani Mamani against the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice Puno, on pages 113, date June 18, 2010, confirming the appeal states that inappropriate demand for cars, and SERVING
1. That on September 17, 2009, plaintiff brought the claim for protection against judges of the Third Peace Courts of Puno and the Second Puno Family Court, asking that it rescind the Judicial Resolution No. 9, dated June 11, 2009, rejecting his appeal pending, and the Resolution No. 3 dated July 22, 2009, by which it dismissed the petition in which he brought to the denial of its application appeal, and therefore restore the situation prior to the constitutional involvement, is ordered to be given by brought her appeal against the decision dated May 6, 2009. In his opinion, the court rulings challenged injured effective judicial protection and due process of law in their manifestations of defense and the right to appeal. Is
Dona Estela Cutipa Manzano, before the Third Court of Peace Counsel Puno, promoted against him, food processing No. 1470-2008, adding that a ruling dated May 6, 2009. your claim is upheld, that not finding according to law appealed, which was declared inadmissible because it did not follow the respective court fee, argues that the term established remedied and that despite this, arguing that there was no copy of its letter of correction, by court order No. 9, this was rejected, why we appealed that ruling in the complaint, appeal was also rejected by the questioned Resolution No. 3.
2. That on March 16, 2010, the Joint Court near Puno declared inadmissible the request for defense, arguing that constitutional judicial review body is not the ordinary courts. In turn, the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Puno confirms the appeal on the grounds that the shelter has not exhausted all means of challenge to the ordinary law provides, since the disputed Judicial Resolution No. 9 was challenged in a complaint.
3. That the above analysis on demand, as well as instrumental cars that run on notice that what the plaintiff seeks purity is that rescission of judicial decisions that are adverse, which were issued by regular judges in the context of civil proceedings of food (food collection), arguing that it violated due process, specifically their rights to counsel and the right to appeal, since applying the warning was declared not filed his appeal sentencing.
4. That as pointed out repeatedly in the jurisprudence of this Court: "(...) the process of amparo is a constitutional process independent and can not be taken as a process which can be moved for discussion and resolution, an issue already resolved in the ordinary process. The constitutional control of a judicial decision through the protection does not mean that this is one more instance of the regular process, but rather, that control is with a constitutional canon eigenvalue "(JCC 03506-2008-PA/TC, FJ 3).
5. That is why this school considers that the application must be dismissed, since it means the shelter is intended that the constitutional court make formal statement on legal situations unrelated to the threat or violation of fundamental rights, such as requirements to be met by the defendant for bringing impugnatorios resources the law provides, or as to the Annexes to be raise these resources, a matter that clearly falls outside the protection through a security process except that judicial decisions and the effects of these cross the margins of reasonableness and proportionality that any determination must be respected, thus affecting so manifest and serious any fundamental right, which has not happened in this case.
Indeed, the record together we see that remedied the omission to seek the remedy of appeal ruling to the rate of judicial (F. 81 of the record together), the protection failed this time presented many copies of the application for relief as parties in the process, which is why, through Resolution No. 8 is ordered within a day, present these and official notice to the parties, failing which have not submitted the letter (f. 82 of the record together), being that, once the new term relief and are ordered using the warning has not filed its application, by Judicial Resolution No. 9 (f. 83 of the record together), which, by contrast, shows a full exercise of the rights claimed.
6. That therefore because the facts and the request are not directly referred to constitutionally protected content of the rights claimed, must be rejected demand to be covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Code of the Constitution.
No. PUNO
02693-2010-PA/TC
ARTEMIO Mamani Mamani
RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Lima (Arequipa), 21 September 2010 SEEN
The constitutional tort action brought by Don Artemio Mamani Mamani against the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice Puno, on pages 113, date June 18, 2010, confirming the appeal states that inappropriate demand for cars, and SERVING
1. That on September 17, 2009, plaintiff brought the claim for protection against judges of the Third Peace Courts of Puno and the Second Puno Family Court, asking that it rescind the Judicial Resolution No. 9, dated June 11, 2009, rejecting his appeal pending, and the Resolution No. 3 dated July 22, 2009, by which it dismissed the petition in which he brought to the denial of its application appeal, and therefore restore the situation prior to the constitutional involvement, is ordered to be given by brought her appeal against the decision dated May 6, 2009. In his opinion, the court rulings challenged injured effective judicial protection and due process of law in their manifestations of defense and the right to appeal. Is
Dona Estela Cutipa Manzano, before the Third Court of Peace Counsel Puno, promoted against him, food processing No. 1470-2008, adding that a ruling dated May 6, 2009. your claim is upheld, that not finding according to law appealed, which was declared inadmissible because it did not follow the respective court fee, argues that the term established remedied and that despite this, arguing that there was no copy of its letter of correction, by court order No. 9, this was rejected, why we appealed that ruling in the complaint, appeal was also rejected by the questioned Resolution No. 3.
2. That on March 16, 2010, the Joint Court near Puno declared inadmissible the request for defense, arguing that constitutional judicial review body is not the ordinary courts. In turn, the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Puno confirms the appeal on the grounds that the shelter has not exhausted all means of challenge to the ordinary law provides, since the disputed Judicial Resolution No. 9 was challenged in a complaint.
3. That the above analysis on demand, as well as instrumental cars that run on notice that what the plaintiff seeks purity is that rescission of judicial decisions that are adverse, which were issued by regular judges in the context of civil proceedings of food (food collection), arguing that it violated due process, specifically their rights to counsel and the right to appeal, since applying the warning was declared not filed his appeal sentencing.
4. That as pointed out repeatedly in the jurisprudence of this Court: "(...) the process of amparo is a constitutional process independent and can not be taken as a process which can be moved for discussion and resolution, an issue already resolved in the ordinary process. The constitutional control of a judicial decision through the protection does not mean that this is one more instance of the regular process, but rather, that control is with a constitutional canon eigenvalue "(JCC 03506-2008-PA/TC, FJ 3).
5. That is why this school considers that the application must be dismissed, since it means the shelter is intended that the constitutional court make formal statement on legal situations unrelated to the threat or violation of fundamental rights, such as requirements to be met by the defendant for bringing impugnatorios resources the law provides, or as to the Annexes to be raise these resources, a matter that clearly falls outside the protection through a security process except that judicial decisions and the effects of these cross the margins of reasonableness and proportionality that any determination must be respected, thus affecting so manifest and serious any fundamental right, which has not happened in this case.
Indeed, the record together we see that remedied the omission to seek the remedy of appeal ruling to the rate of judicial (F. 81 of the record together), the protection failed this time presented many copies of the application for relief as parties in the process, which is why, through Resolution No. 8 is ordered within a day, present these and official notice to the parties, failing which have not submitted the letter (f. 82 of the record together), being that, once the new term relief and are ordered using the warning has not filed its application, by Judicial Resolution No. 9 (f. 83 of the record together), which, by contrast, shows a full exercise of the rights claimed.
6. That therefore because the facts and the request are not directly referred to constitutionally protected content of the rights claimed, must be rejected demand to be covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Code of the Constitution.
For these reasons, the Constitutional Court with the authority under the Constitution of Peru
RESOLVED
dismiss the request. Published and notifíquese
.
SS. BEAUMONT
Callirgos
ETO STREET CROSS Hayen
RESOLVED
dismiss the request. Published and notifíquese
.
SS. BEAUMONT
Callirgos
ETO STREET CROSS Hayen
0 comments:
Post a Comment