[ad_1]
The Supreme Administrative Court once again refused to rule on the restrictions imposed by the Government. The group once again considered that the Chega party, which had already appealed to the Court of Justice against such limitations, did not have the legitimacy to represent and challenge the State’s compliance with citizens’ rights.
It was another boomerang effect of the second summons delivered by the party led by André Ventura against the prohibitions that are in force this weekend, including the closure of commercial establishments and the curfew from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on Saturday. it is Sunday,
As with Chega’s other action regarding the All Saints’ Weekend ban, the Supreme Administrative Court (STA) ruled that the law does not give the party the power to represent individual rights or challenge the violation. against a rights holder. , as a worker.
In the decision, which JN agreed on this Saturday, STA repeats almost “ipsis verbis” what it had already said a month ago: “attentive to its nature as a political party, [o Chega] it has no standing to deduce the subpoena request. “
“Strictly speaking, only natural persons can be holders (active subjects) of fundamental rights, because the human dignity that sustains them is valid only for persons (the only human persons) and not for legal or legal persons”, mentions the judgment. Therefore, it concludes that “in the absence, as in the case of the case, the ownership of interests at stake,” the group opted for the “preliminary rejection of the summons request” and the “consequent acquittal” of the Government.
For JN, André Ventura regretted “another decision in which the Supreme Court decided not to decide and leave the tape extended to the Government.” “That is why it is not easy to defend business and freedoms in Portugal,” criticized the leader of Chega.
The party alleged to the STA that the Government imposed “an inappropriate, disproportionate and highly penalizing limitation on the operation of catering establishments”, without “scientific basis”, causing “irreversible damage to the right to work.”
[ad_2]
