Following the failure of Crucitas some people have claimed that the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of legal uncertainty for businesses. On the other hand, some argue that the legal uncertainty is created by public officials acting against the provisions in laws. This is one of those rare occasions where everyone is right and everyone is partially wrong (at least by default).
In principle there can be legal uncertainty around where the law applies or correct a misapplication of the law. But for a moment let us in the position of Industrias Infinito. Almost 8 years ago the company applied for and obtained a grant to develop its business here. For this simply met-or thought-to meet the requirements set by the appropriate institutions and laws (or at least the interpretation of these laws were those who approve such awards). What happens to the window where you apply to the inside is completely invisible to her. The company part of a simple reality: she appeared before the official authorities, making the request and that request is answered with an authorization or rejection. By the time the grant is approved the company began to operate within a concrete reality: it has a permit issued by a competent authority. The rest is invisible, it should be otherwise for those seeking such permission. That is legal certainty.
So far the company has an expectation based on apparently undisputed facts. But is it just around ... 7 years! anything he had was real. This means, neither more nor less, even if you have a permit, it will always be provisional. This generates a specific event that is actually a negative for foreign investment. And of course we do not want any kind of investment foreign country, but we accept must have a minimum of security to protect her.
But on the other hand, it is true that what is wrong (hey, does not always mean bad corrupt) officials may be the source of this insecurity. And here are rather the courts to restore our legal certainty. However, it is important to note that often some permissions which are then challenged are awarded based on criteria that those who are not part of public administration does not know (and should know better to judge the performance of officials). Because of course we start from the premise that the simplifications crude to say that a permit is granted because there is always some corruption is absurd, unless of course you choose, knowingly and maliciously believe that as political practice.
The truth is that often allowed to operate in certain companies because it believes it could be beneficial to a sector of the population, region or economic activity. Possibly for reasons external eye or appear not to be cared little grounded, which of course does not mean that there is corruption as an irrefutable fact. But to do these things the public servant is facing its own legal uncertainty of a legal framework that regulates their activity is prolific, contradictory, and ignored, ambiguous, that does not provide the basis for an accurate performance. So often the actions of a public official is determined by what you achieve, his interpretation of the legal framework will depend on what he perceives as favorable outcome, and that's where the problems begin, just like when you want to pass or when wants to reject an application.
People who have responsibilities in the public administration is confronted daily with this dilemma of wanting to do things, to generate positive impacts and the existence of a legal framework that does not always do that safely. Any discussion of a topic as the failure of Crucitas, and any other involving the granting of permits to private companies, should include this dimension. Because only this way can we begin to refine the legal framework that generates this kind of thing. If not, never reach the status of legal certainty necessary for most situations do not face how are you in the future, which is what I assume is what we all ultimately aspire.
0 comments:
Post a Comment