It therefore unanimously rejects the appeal of unconstitutionality that the PP has raised against the law. The plenary session of the Constitutional Court already endorsed on January 31 that Euskadi and Navarra are competent to manage the minimum vital income by rejecting another appeal from Vox in the same sentence.
The Constitutional Court has unanimously rejected the appeal of unconstitutionality raised by the PP against the Minimum Living Income Act (IMV) and confirmed this Euskadi and Navarra have the authority to administer this benefit.
The plenary session of the Constitutional Court already endorsed on January 31 that Euskadi and Navarra are competent to manage the minimum living income through a new request for Vox in the same way.
As reported on Wednesday by the Constitutional Court, the Plenary Court has now rejected, also unanimously, the appeal for unconstitutionality filed by the PP deputies in Congress against the fifth additional provision of the above-mentioned law, approved in December 2021. That additional provision provides that both autonomous communities under the provincial regime shall, after signing an agreement with the State, undertake the management and payment of said benefits on their territory.
This decision reiterates the criterion included in the ruling of January 31 regarding the appeal filed by the Vox delegates in Congress against the same regulation, reasoning that the assumption by the regional regime communities of the processing and recognition of the Minimum Vital Income has no influence on the ‘single fund’ of social security.
This is so, he argues, because so are the regulations that the above-mentioned communities will have to apply whole state and the state reserves functions -such as setting criteria, managing the “digital social card” system or subsequent financial control- that They guarantee the maintenance of the unitary model and the uniform economic functioning of social security.
In addition, and although the regional communities do not have any special powers in the field of social security, their financing system, derived from the first additional provision of the Constitution, also allows them to assume the payment of the benefit and then the amount to be deducted from the quota. and contribution resulting from the Concert and Economic Agreement with the State.
The court therefore concludes that the contested provision applies is not inconsistent with the division of powers in the field of social security laid down in art. 149.1.17 of the Constitution, nor the first additional provision of the Magna Carta, which also leads to the rejection of the violation of Articles 14, 41 and 149.1.1 regarding the principle of equality and the maintenance of a unitary social security model.
Source: EITB
I’m Wayne Wickman, a professional journalist and author for Today Times Live. My specialty is covering global news and current events, offering readers a unique perspective on the world’s most pressing issues. I’m passionate about storytelling and helping people stay informed on the goings-on of our planet.
