The government refused funds to the court and the courts went on strike – 11/27/2018

In a new chapter that adds institutional tensions and hours of Supreme Court publication on key issues, such as if judges had to pay gains, the government refused funds that had asked the High Court to process 20% increase expected in the recomposition of salaries of 2018 with judicial employees.

Warned of the situation, advanced by Clarin, of the Union of Justice Employees of the country, led by Julio Piumato, launched a mobilization for this afternoon at the Palace of Justice and confirmed a stop for this Thursday. "We reject this blatant violation of the independence of the judiciary, and until that is decided, we will paralyze justice," Piumato said. Clarin.

Clarin Bulletins

What you need to know today | The most important news of the day to read in ten minutes

Monday to Friday morning

Through a note, signed by the chief of staff, Marcos Peña; the government apologizes for not having responded to the request for a budget increase of 1.605 billion pesos presented by the court in October, after agreeing with the courts a nominal salary increase of 40%. "It had not been answered before because the recently approved 2019 budget was being processed," explains the Cabinet Office letter to the High Court ministers.

Already in the concrete response to the request, Peña notes "the effort of the government, provincial governments and other state powers" and maintains that "the modification of budget items, as requested, heavily affects Treasury resources"

In this sense, the head of government asks that "in the context of shared efforts", the Court decides that the salary increase of 10% scheduled for December 2018, "To be awarded in the next fiscal year". This is already with the application of the new budget. "In February, as a national administration," they added the government.

In the same vein, Peña announced that to accompany the 10% increase set by the court for the month of October, she would change the current fiscal year games.

As published ClarinThe subject of the funds needed by the Supreme Court had been put on the table at the lunch between Mauricio Macri and High Court President Carlos Rosenkrantz earlier this month.

Sources who closely follow the fight declare that the measure of Peña was logically not retained by the High Court and that it exceeds what will define Tuesday the Supreme Court on the question of the judges appointed from the 1st January 2017 must pay. The benefits, as established by the law 27 346 promoted by this government, should benefit from the regime enjoyed by the most senior judges.

The voices consulted argue that it could be happening at a retaliation for a possible failure for the government in the decision to adjust pensions according to the timetable set by the Court, will be dealt with on 10 December. "Marcos is hot because it goes against the failure of pensioners and the money on the funds," judicial sources said.

What does it refer to? In the pension case, Luis Blanco sued the state for updating his wages based with the Ripte, the average taxable remuneration of the employees. Stable workers, used to update the tax-free minimum and the income tax schedules. The government used this index calculate badet readjustments in historical repair.

Sometimes Blanco has obtained favorable rulings – that is, it is paid to the ISBIC – before this law is sanctioned in 2016. Therefore, the definition of Supreme Court of Justice could affect tens of thousands of retirees in the same state. In the government, meanwhile, it could have a budgetary impact since an update with this index generates larger increments for the Ripte.

Among the many tugs that occur between the changes that occurred at the Court after Carlos Rosenkrantz took office to the presidency and the departure of Ricardo Lorenzetti, all of the key issues that must define the Court and have an impact on the Government includes the constitutionality of the application of 2×1 to the cause of crimes against humanity, vote scheduled for December 4; and the law of slogans in Santa Cruz, seven days later.

In this context, the courts will press the court for it to comply with the agreement. But they hold the government accountable. "This goes beyond a government challenge to a wage agreement.This government had promised to abide by the decisions of the Court and now wants to mark the program.We are asking the Court to ratify the agreement. salary increase with an agreed agreement, "added Piumato.