The Council of State revoked the decision by the Administrative Court of Boyacá to reject the lawsuit against the election of Mikhail Krasnov as municipal mayor of Tunja.
The Administrative Litigation Chamber, Fifth Section, of the Council of State made the decision to revoke the order of March 6, 2024, by means of which the Second Decision Chamber of the Administrative Court of Boyacá rejected the claim presented by the Group of Advisories and Legal Representation against the election of Mr. Mikhail Krasnov as municipal mayor of Tunja.
Secondly, it makes the ruling final and returns “the file to the Court of origin so that it can provide what is legally appropriate regarding the admission of the means of control.”
And in its third and last paragraph it even warns “the Administrative Court of Boyacá about the existence of memorials presented by the attorney of the defendant, in relation to orders issued by this judicial authority and with respect to which the pronouncement that must be issued must be issued. in law it corresponds.”
In this way, the High Court responded in its ruling to the claim of the Legal Advisory and Representation Group as an appeal for rejection of the claim, legitimation in the case in the control of electoral nullity.
“The Fifth Section of the Council of State has considered it inadmissible for a third party intervener to assume positions that are typical of the party to which he adheres and, therefore, that the intervener can only provide argumentative support to the procedural subject he supports, without “it is possible to bring up new charges or defense arguments regarding the intervention of the intervening party, or to present, autonomously, appeals or other requests within the process,” the ruling relates in one of its sections.
And he continues: “Now, coming down to the specific case, we have that the Administrative Court of Boyacá rejected the claim as the defendant did not provide the citizenship card that would accredit them as a practicing citizen and Colombian national. Likewise, he indicated that given that a new lawsuit was filed, this aspect could not be corrected, while the phenomenon of expiration occurred.”
Furthermore, the Chamber of the Fifth Section of the Council of State found that the plaintiff is correct in his appeal arguments and will proceed to revoke the decision, in accordance with the considerations listed in the ruling.
Later he once again agrees with the Legal Advisory and Representation Group: “…as the appellant points out, that the Administrative Court of Boyacá had as a basis for the rejection of the means of control of the reference a rituality that is neither its own nor “is in keeping with the nature of the means of control in question and, therefore, a barrier to access to the administration of justice was imposed.”
But they also emphasize from the Council of State that “it is strange to this judiciary that, from a review of the file, what was related to the copy of the identity document of Mr. David Alejandro Dávila, was not the object of reproach from the moment the document was filed. initial, an aspect that was evident and could in turn be reported to said party.”
And the ruling signed by judges Omar Joaquín Barreto Suárez, Luis Alberto Álvarez Parra, Gloria María Gómez Montoya and Pedro Pablo Vanegas Gil emphasizes that according to the verification of the digital file in the SAMAI system, the lawsuit was presented on November 16, 202339 , that is, when only seven days of the 30-day period had elapsed, literal a) of numeral 2 of article 164 of Law 1437 of 2011 was established, and that the above allows it to conclude its due opportunity.
“Now, the memorial filed on February 27, 2024, which responds to the requirements made in the ruling of the 23rd of the same year, responds to an action to correct the claim and therefore cannot be understood as a “second lawsuit” or even as a reform to the one initially presented,” they emphasize from the Fifth Chamber.
Thus, the 13-page ruling continues, from no perspective can it be considered that the phenomenon of expiration occurred in the present case, since the procedural actions taken by the plaintiff after the inadmissibility of the initial document allow it to be considered that new charges of annulment regarding the election of Mr. Mikhail Krasnov as mayor of the municipality of Tunja.
And finally, in paragraph 74, it warns that “Accordingly, the Chamber finds sufficient reasons to proceed to revoke the appealed order and, consequently, order that the admission of the means of control of the reference be made.”
