Search

Protection against the seizure of public assets as enshrined in Article 63 of the 1991 Political Constitution has been recognized as necessary to guarantee that the State has sufficient resources to carry out its functions. However, the normative development of this law has generated important conflicts in relation to the right of access to justice, property, the validity and recognition of fundamental rights, and the principle of legal security. The article addresses these tensions through analysis of legal decisions of the Constitutional Court emitted between 1992 and 2019, in which three exceptions to the nonseizability of public assets and resources were identified: i) when the state needs to make good on debts or other obligations in respect of public sector workers in order to guarantee the right to work in dignified and fair conditions; ii) when the state is legally bound to pay compensation for damages in order to guarantee legal security and the rights of those affected by the state's actions; and iii) when it is a question of the fulfilment of a clear, express and legally enforceable obligation contained in an executive order issued by the state. These exceptions have been adopted by the Council of State and applied to executive proceedings from the 1990s to the present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]