{"id":390,"date":"2024-06-03T11:58:44","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T11:58:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/?p=390"},"modified":"2024-08-15T23:13:09","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T23:13:09","slug":"tribunal-de-mendoza-rechaza-accion-de-amparo-solicitada-por-aprotam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/tribunal-de-mendoza-rechaza-accion-de-amparo-solicitada-por-aprotam\/","title":{"rendered":"Mendoza Court Rejects Amparo Action Filed by APROTAM"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On the 8th of May, 2019, in the case \u201c<em>Asociaci\u00f3n de Propietarios de Taxi de Mendoza (APROTAM) c\/ Gobierno de la Provincia de Mendoza p\/acci\u00f3n de amparo<\/em>\", (CAU CUIJ N\u00b0 13-04464442-2), the Court rejected the amparo action filed by the Taxi Owners\u2019 Association of Mendoza, considering that the chosen action was not appropriate for this particular case. It held that in none of the combined cases did the plaintiffs justify what serious or irreparable damage they would face if they raised the issue using a declaratory claim of unconstitutionality. Additionally, the Court emphasised that, for the amparo action to proceed, the contested act must clearly be arbitrary or illegal, noting that neither Law 9086, nor its regulatory decree, could be considered as such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/2-Sentencia-Aprotam-.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of (2) Sentencia Aprotam.\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-d64e92c0-5d7c-476d-868f-e9e251d34e89\" href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/2-Sentencia-Aprotam-.pdf\">(2) Sentencia Aprotam<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/2-Sentencia-Aprotam-.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-d64e92c0-5d7c-476d-868f-e9e251d34e89\">Descarga<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-media-text is-vertically-aligned-center has-background\" style=\"background-color:#f9f9f9;grid-template-columns:15% auto\"><figure class=\"wp-block-media-text__media\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-32-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1168 size-full\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-32-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-32-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-32-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-32.jpg 1200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure><div class=\"wp-block-media-text__content\">\n<p class=\"has-small-font-size\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.freepik.es\/vector-gratis\/experto-servicios-legales-educacion-juridica-justicia-e-igualdad-orientacion-juicios-profesionales-abogado-asesor-legal-asesorando-asuntos-controvertidos-ilustracion-metafora-concepto-aislado-vector_12083572.htm#query=legalidad&amp;position=3&amp;from_view=search&amp;track=sph\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">&#8211; Cr\u00e9ditos de imagen utilizada<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>En la causa \u201cAsociaci\u00f3n de Propietarios de Taxi de Mendoza (APROTAM) c\/ Gobierno de la Provincia de Mendoza p\/acci\u00f3n de amparo\u201d, (CAU CUIJ N\u00b0 13-04464442-2), 14\/05\/2019, el Tribunal rechaz\u00f3 la acci\u00f3n de amparo interpuesta por Asociaci\u00f3n de Propietarios de Taxis [&hellip;]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[5,14,23,21],"tags":[84],"class_list":["post-390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jurisprudencia","category-jurisprudencia-de-mendoza","category-legalidad","category-temas","tag-legalidad"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=390"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/390\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3417,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/390\/revisions\/3417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}