Former head of the General Inspectorate of Justice (IGJ) and extremist extremist, Ricardo Nissen, He lost in the Supreme Court his battle to become a plaintiff in a case in which he denounced a group of Commercial Appeals Chamber judges They sought to “neutralize” the powers of the organization and benefit powerful businessmen.
Before assuming the position of President of the IGJ in 2019, Nissen was the representative of the Kirchner family in the Hutsur case Immediately after taking office, he “protected” the hotel company and the Patria Institute so that it is not known how it is funded and who is part of it, among other controversial actions.
Nissen was a jury member in the autonomous city of Buenos Aires in 2006; and with a judge of the State Supreme Court in 2014 at Christina’s request, among other positions. In addition, he is the lawyer of businessman Mario Cifuentes. He chairs the Vidas Foundation with Prosecutor Gabriela Boquin, coach of the Correo case against the family of former President Mauricio Macri.
Moreover, as president of the International Institute of Judges, he withdrew from the appeal to the court, brought by the same body during the Macri administration, to force Cristina Kirchner’s Patria Institute to report on its partners and account for its expenses. Given the controversial withdrawal of the accused party, the Supreme Court had no choice and archived the case and it will never be possible to ask this civic association to be transparent about its expenses.
In today’s case, Nissen sought to become a plaintiff in the case that began in 2022. However, he received denials in all cases. He brought his proposal before the Supreme Court, which today rejected the offer as unacceptable.
The former official who headed the IGJ in the Kirchner government and in the government of Alberto Fernandez denounced that nine judges in the National Chamber of Commercial Appeals were working systematically to prevent a supervisory body like the one he leads from doing its job of controlling companies.
He stated in his complaint that the judges sought to favor influential groups. He accused them of abuse of power, non-compliance with the duties of public officials, evasion, usurpation of functions, and delaying justice. The nine judges mentioned are the chambermaids Héctor Osvaldo Chumer, María Elsa Ozal, Alfredo Koleker Freres, Julia Villanueva, Eduardo Machín, Pablo Damián Heredia, Miguel Bargallo, Angel Sala, and Hernan Moncla.
According to their complaint, what the judges are supposed to intend “is simply to abolish the surveillance powers of the IJ that were granted exclusively by law. This seizure of functions is intended to prevent the control of fraudulent maneuvers of maritime activity, in an apparent search to benefit from the irregular operations of shell companies, and to remove them from the specialized state auditor.” In addition, he spoke of a kind of “uprising by a group of Chamber of Commerce magistrates against the national constitution itself and the division of powers (and distribution of powers) sanctioned by the Magna Carta.”
Tension between Nissen and the judges of that jurisdiction led to The justices signed a statement after the official publicly announced that he would request their removal. They said Nissen’s statements constituted “an undeniable ignorance of the power exercised by judges who are members of the National Court of Appeal, since the rightness or wrongness of what they did cannot be judged or questioned by an administrative decision.” “It is an accepted principle that the authorities of any hierarchy, whether national or local, cannot obstruct, disturb or in any way ignore the work of judges who form part of the judiciary of the State, and they must comply with the duty of compliance that burdens them,” they noted. They stressed that the only way to question judicial decisions is through the available legal mechanisms.
The judges concluded that “it is the duty of this Chamber to demand and guarantee the full validity of the institutional system, which is based on the principles of justice publicly expressed in the balance and mutual respect between the powers of the State which should not, and cannot, be compromised by subordinate actions of officials, who in their practice do not maintain the necessary quality and hierarchy required by the relations between the executive power – on which the General Inspectorate of Justice depends – and the judicial power of the nation.”