Everything was around two names and this morning the Federal Chamber made the determination. Judge Alejandro Sánchez Freytes was unanimously appointed as substitute for Federal Court Number 1.
It is one of the most important places of Cordoba Justice. He had been bacchante after the departure of former judge Ricardo Bustos Fierro.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation had upheld the proposal of Sánchez Freytes himself and Miguel Hugo Vaca Narvaja (both were disputing for the space) and had annulled the appointment of the Bell Ville judge, Sergio Pinto, as surrogate of the Federal Court 1.
A long story in a few months
The resolution of the Court questions the decision that the Federal Court of Appeals of Córdoba had taken by majority. Pinto’s appointment had been endorsed by Eduardo Ávalos, Liliana Navarro and Ignacio Vélez Funes (who resigned last week amid complaints).
For their part, judges Sánchez Freytes and Vaca Narvaja appealed to the Court with separate requests for certiorari, considering that the way in which the subrogation was resolved was contrary to the law. Among the elements that they raised and that the Court took into account, is the fact that the historical surrogate of Bustos Fierro is Sánchez Freytes, and that this was always the case by virtue of Law 27,439, which establishes that the order of priority to the When subrogating a federal judge, another judge with the same territorial jurisdiction has it.
Within this framework, the Federal Chamber of Córdoba had to designate a new substitute for Bustos Fierro. The resolution of the Court clarified that all the acts carried out by Pinto since his appointment as replacement in Court 1 until now are valid.
Given that Federal Court 1 has electoral jurisdiction, after the withdrawal of Bustos Fierro, the National Electoral Chamber already appointed Sánchez Freytes as subrogant in that matter.
In their brief, the members of the Supreme Court Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Juan Carlos Maqueda maintain that the Federal Court of Appeals of Córdoba “arbitrarily departed from the legal guidelines when making the appointment” of Pinto, and that this “led to an unjustified alteration of the order of priority established by law”.
The Court emphasizes that the decision of the Chamber could have been valid in the event that the other two judges of the city of Córdoba recorded repeated breaches of the legal deadlines for the issuance of sentences, but indicates that this exceptional circumstance must be determined based on parameters objective and verifiable, which were not proven in the case of Sánchez Freytes and Vaca Narvaja. Now the Federal Chamber of Córdoba must define the subrogation of Court 1 between those two judges.