05/06/2024. While the Supreme Court still does not define whether it supports the appeal for protection presented by consumer defense organizations, the company left those who did not pay the increased bills without supply
A legal loophole that EJESA takes advantage of to begin cutting services to those who could not pay the bills with the exorbitant increases, a maneuver that residents of San Pedro de Jujuy and Perico experience from time to time.
Everything derives from the refusal of the provincial attorney, Sebastián Albesa, to appeal the ruling that the judge of the Contentious Administrative jurisdiction determined to give rise to the appeal for protection presented by consumer defense organizations, which presented two proposals, the first, to retrograde the rates at January values, prior to the SUSEPu resolution that granted the increase without even holding a public hearing and, secondly, stopping service cuts to those who could not afford to pay for the service with the new billing. This measure was planned until April. Once the deadline expired, the company began to cut service in settlements, both in San Pedro and Perico.
The situation must be resolved in the Supreme Court of Justice, which still has not decided whether to accept or reject the appeal of the provincial official. “The board of Dr. (Ekel) Meyer has it and we still do not have a resolution on whether or not to admit the appeal raised by the professional Albesa,” said Alicia Chalabe, CODELCO representative in dialogue with Radio 2.
The lawyer focused on the fundamental role that justice has in knowing whether it is resolved in favor of the users or in favor of the concessionaire company. “Until it is resolved we will not know what happens to the fate of the precautionary measure.”
Regarding the cuts, Chalabe highlighted “that precautionary measure was until the end of April because there was a hearing on May 7 – tomorrow – that was suspended as a result of the appeal raised by the attorney, how long do we have to wait for the Court to decide? expedite, it is the uncertainty we have.”
Given the extension of the conflict and which now leaves all consumers unprotected, the lawyer explained that if we knew that the official was going to appeal the appeal “we would have requested another measure to extend it” for the month of May inclusive.
Despite this, the CODELCO representative pointed to another half-favorable ruling by justice, both for users and for the company and that emerges from the judicialization of resolution 182 of the SUSEPU that, without going to the Legislative Branch to change fare categories. “He agrees with both parties” and explained that he half-supports the increase that was applied in 2020. “Beyond the technical issues, which we are going to discuss, we are going to say that the fixed position is well established or poorly established.” or the FOPEJ for the rate categories, it is the percentage increase that we proposed was unconstitutional and illegal, because it does not match the salary levels of the province of Jujuy, this is our fundamental proposal, that is our discussion,” he pointed out.
#Argentina
