The claims of Argentine provinces to funds owed by the national government They do not stop appearing and on this occasion the Supreme Court has accepted a sponsored case from Santa Cruz to pay for almost 600 billion Pesos plus interest.
The highest court declared its original jurisdiction in the dispute between the nation and the Patagonian province Claudio Vidal.
The lawsuit takes place within the framework of the so-called “Fiscal Consensus 2017,” the amounts of which, according to the lawsuit, were owed from the years 2023 and 2024 Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti They refused to take any precautionary measures At the province’s request, they turned to the nation-state to respond to the request.
The presentation was promoted by Vidal, who pointed out that on November 16, 2017, the nation-state and the provinces signed the so-called “fiscal consensus”, in which the national state has undertaken to compensate the provinces that have complied and complied with it through daily and automatic transfers.
The lawsuit claims that an agreement was reached to refund an amount corresponding to the effective decrease in resources in 2018 resulting from the abolition of Article 104 of the “Income Tax Law” and the increase in the specific allocation of the “Tax on credits and debits to bank and other operating accounts”.
In this context, it has also been established that the compensation to the provinces will be managed by the individual jurisdictions, which will use them for investments in health, education, hospital, manufacturing, housing or road infrastructure, and that they will be updated quarterly in the following years in line with inflation.
The province claimed that the national state had failed to fulfill its obligations and demanded that the requested amounts be transferred.
It called for an innovative precautionary measure to satisfy the payment of $589,300,000 corresponding to the alleged unpaid debt relating to the year 2023 and the months of January and February 2024, “subject to such claim periods, updates, adjustments and/or interest as may accrue in the future.”
The lawsuit states: “the current damage This results in a shortage of already committed funds intended for investments in health, education, hospital, manufacturing, housing or road infrastructure – in urban or rural areas that this precautionary measure is intended to ensure that the Province can count on such resources to ensure the well-being of its population while the procedure is ongoing.“.
After hearing from the Attorney General, the Supreme Court recognized its original jurisdiction over the case but rejected the precautionary measure. “The available background information is not sufficient to take into account the above-mentioned assumptions regarding the admissibility of the required security measure.“, replied the judges.
“The precautionary order transferring the amount requested by the applicant province is obviously a judicial act of such magnitude that it goes beyond the hypothetical framework in which any protective measure exhausts its effectiveness, especially taking into account the fact that the general considerations contained in Chapter VI of the application do not allow, at this stage of the procedure, to demonstrate harmful effects of such gravity that they cannot be reversed by the adoption of a positive final decision.”
The Supreme Court now ordered “the transfer of the filed lawsuit, which is based on the ordinary procedure, to the nation state for a period of sixty days.”
We would like to get to know you!
Register for free at El Cronista for an experience tailored to you.
About The Author
