Together with the social group Todos por Nuestro Arroyos (TxNA) we express our disagreement with the decision of the Civil, Commercial and Family Court of 2nd Nomination of Alta Gracia. Said resolution, notified hours before the start of the judicial fair, denied participation as interested third parties that we requested together with neighbors of the city, in the trial that Potrerillo de Larreta S.A. It started against the province of Córdoba for the removal of the wires, which illegally prevented the passage in the Los Paredones stream.
“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”
“It is regrettable that our participation has been considered irrelevant, and among the arguments the idea has been taken that we have no reason to feel legitimated to participate in the trial. This case mobilized all of Alta Gracia, who understood that there cannot be more wires in the spaces that belong to all of us, “said Fabiana Marbián, a member of TxNA and a resident of the city.
“It gets worse when the Judiciary took more than two years to respond to neighbors who, with no interest other than protecting the resources that belong to all Altagracians, ask for participation in a trial that involves all of us,” he emphasized. Marbián, while adding: “It is not to believe, but the years continue to pass and from the private neighborhood they continue to achieve their objective, which is to wire a public watercourse.”
From Fundeps we will appeal to the judicial decision, because the rejection seriously affects fundamental rights of citizenship. One of the most affected rights is the denial of the participation of neighbors in a controversy in which access to a stream (subject to the public domain) and the enjoyment of its environmental services are at stake, which goes against the guarantee of access to justice, the right to enjoy effective judicial protection, as well as the enjoyment of the right to the environment.
This rejection not only affects the participation of the institution in this specific case, but also sets a regressive judicial precedent for the entire province in terms of access to justice by civil society. The participation of civil society in this type of process is key to improving judicial activity in matters of public interest and to democratizing judicial debate.