A delegation of the UIHJ takes part in a seminar in Mendoza

Delegating enforcement

This seminar was organised by the Argentinean legal bodies, in particular, the Supreme Court, the Association of the magistrates, the bar of lawyers and the Chamber of the notaries.

This topic was the subject of three interventions: Mrs Aïda Kemelelmajer de Carlucci, judge at the Supreme Court, Alfredo Vicente Segura, general administrator of the judicial power, and Dominique Aribaut-Abadie, member of the UIHJ.

Mrs Kemelelmajer de Carlucci, after having thanked the assembly for having come in so great number, was delighted by the interest shown to the selected topic. She quickly determined the central point of the debate: “We arrive quickly at the judgement but the problem remains its enforcement”. The judge at the Supreme Court then proposed one of the solutions which could be the delegation of the public power to a person external to the law courts.

She devoted herself to an examination of the Constitution to check if there was not any incompatibility to admit this delegation of the enforcement of the Judge to an external person to the court.

She then presented the various particular cases in which the Argentinean law already admits this delegation of enforcement to a person other than the judge (in particular as regards tax collection).

She finished while insisting on the great number of files (inheritance and enforcement) which occupy the Argentinean magistrates and is time consuming.

As a conclusion, she quoted a sentence of President Roosevelt: “Something should be done”.

Multiplicity of the functions of the judge

Mr. Alfredo Vicente Segura, administrator of the judicial power, made a statistical study which showed the complexity of the mission of the judges, complexity always related on the extent of the businesses of which they have to know and to the work which they require upstream and downstream.

For the delegation of the UIHJ, accustomed to the French system, the multiplication, as well as the diversity of the functions of the judge, could appear surprising.

Dominique Aribaut-Abadie insisted on the incongruity of the system. Indeed the Argentinean judges, monopolised by tasks which they would not normally have to achieve - let us quote in this respect the resolution of the problems arising after the judgement - are not able any more to fulfil their first mission: to say the law and to solve the litigations.

Following that, she presented the French model of judicial officers which seems to fall under the logic of the solution that Mrs Kemelelmajer de Carlucci would wish to adapt, namely the delegation to an independent and qualified lawyer of the public power as regards enforcement.

At the end of her intervention, many questions relating to the practical application of this system were put, in particular about the covering of the alimony, unpaid cheques, and recourse to the police force.

In her conclusions, Mrs Kemelelmajer de Carlucci, with the brilliance which characterises her, insisted on the need for continuing this reflection in an immediate future in order to quickly allow the Argentinean system to evolve towards the creation of an independent body of judicial officers.