Autor
Palabras clave
Recurso de amparo
tasa de admisión
protección de derechos fundamentales
causas de inadmisión
reforma LOTC.
Resumen
La protección de los derechos fundamentales se articula en España por varias vías. Desde la reforma de la LOTC por la LO 6/2007, se da una nueva configuración procesal al recurso de amparo constitucional y se desplaza la responsabilidad principal de su protección a la jurisdicción ordinaria. Esto ha servido para mitigar la enorme carga de trabajo del Tribunal Constitucional, pero el número de recursos de amparo ingresados sigue siendo desproporcionadamente alto en relación al número de admisiones y con las sentencias estimatorias que declaran la vulneración de un derecho fundamental. Esto tiene causas endógenas, pero también, y principalmente, exógenas a la propia dinámica de trabajo del Tribunal. El Tribunal tiene una tasa de admisión de recursos de amparo que ronda el 1% por razones que fundamentalmente escapan de su capacidad y que revelan una utilización ineficiente de los recursos públicos.
Keywords
Recurso de amparo; admission rate; protection of fundamental rights; grounds for inadmissibility; Reform of the Constitutional Court Act.
Abstract
The protection of fundamental rights can be articulated in Spain by several actions. From the passage of Act 6/2007, amending the 1979 Act regulating the Constitucional Court, a new procedural configuration is given to the constitutional action for protection of fundamental rights. The reform shifts the main responsibility of their protection to the ordinary jurisdiction. This has served to mitigate the enormous
load of work of the Constitutional Court but the number of applications lodged is still disproportionately high in relation to the number of admissions and with regard to judgments that declare the violation of an alleged fundamental right. This has endogenous, but also and principally, exogenous reasons which are outbound of the own work dynamics of the Court. The Court shows a rate of admission of appeals
for protection of only 1 % due to reasons that fundamentally escape the control of the Court and that reveal an inefficient use of public funds allocated to grant public legal aid to citizens with disadvantaged economic conditions.
load of work of the Constitutional Court but the number of applications lodged is still disproportionately high in relation to the number of admissions and with regard to judgments that declare the violation of an alleged fundamental right. This has endogenous, but also and principally, exogenous reasons which are outbound of the own work dynamics of the Court. The Court shows a rate of admission of appeals
for protection of only 1 % due to reasons that fundamentally escape the control of the Court and that reveal an inefficient use of public funds allocated to grant public legal aid to citizens with disadvantaged economic conditions.