JURISPRUDENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL EN MATERIA DE EXPROPIACIONES LEGISLATIVAS. STC 111/1983 SOBRE EL CASO RUMASA I Y STC 48/2005 SOBRE LA AMPLIACIÓN DEL PARLAMENTO DE CANARIAS.
Archivos
NO SE HA AUTORIZADO la consulta de los documentos asociados
Fecha
2018-07-12
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Jaén: Universidad de Jaén
Resumen
[ES] En este trabajo tratamos la jurisprudencia del Tribunal
Constitucional en materia de expropiaciones legislativas
centrándonos en las dos sentencias más relevantes en este ámbito:
la STC 111/1983, primera sentencia dictada sobre la expropiación
del Grupo RUMASA; y, por otra parte, la STC 48/2005, sobre la
expropiación mediante Ley Autonómica de unos inmuebles
colindantes al Parlamento de Canarias para la expropiación de este
último.
La nota diferencial de estas expropiaciones respecto de las
expropiaciones forzosas ordinarias reside en la figura jurídica
utilizada para llevar a cabo la expropiación, no siendo un acto
administrativo como ocurre en el procedimiento expropiatorio
ordinario. En el caso RUMASA I, la expropiación se produce
mediante un Real Decreto-Ley, mientras que los inmuebles
colindantes al Parlamento de Canarias son expropiados mediante
una Ley Autonómica.
De esta manera, realizaremos una descripción de ambas
situaciones, con el objetivo de comprender la figura jurídica de las
expropiaciones legislativas.
[EN] On this project we deal with the jurisprudence of constitutional court in matters of legislative expropriations focusing on two of the most outstanding sentences in this area: On the one hand, the ruling of the constitutional court 111/1983, the first sentence pronounced about the expropriation of Rumasa’s group; on the other hand the ruling of the constitutional court 48/2005, about expropriation by means of autonomous law of property adjacent to Canaria’s parliament for the expropriation of this one. The distinguishing note of this expropriations in relation to compulsory and ordinary expropriations reside in the legal figure used for doing the expropriation, not being an administrative act such as happens in the ordinary process. In case of RUMASA I, the expropriation is produced by a royal decree-law, whereas buildings adjacent to Canaria’s parliament are expropriated by an autonomous law. In this way we will do a description of both situations, and the goal is understand the legal figure of legislative expropriations.
[EN] On this project we deal with the jurisprudence of constitutional court in matters of legislative expropriations focusing on two of the most outstanding sentences in this area: On the one hand, the ruling of the constitutional court 111/1983, the first sentence pronounced about the expropriation of Rumasa’s group; on the other hand the ruling of the constitutional court 48/2005, about expropriation by means of autonomous law of property adjacent to Canaria’s parliament for the expropriation of this one. The distinguishing note of this expropriations in relation to compulsory and ordinary expropriations reside in the legal figure used for doing the expropriation, not being an administrative act such as happens in the ordinary process. In case of RUMASA I, the expropriation is produced by a royal decree-law, whereas buildings adjacent to Canaria’s parliament are expropriated by an autonomous law. In this way we will do a description of both situations, and the goal is understand the legal figure of legislative expropriations.