Czy państwo może decydować o miejscu pochówku dyktatora? Komentarz do postanowienia hiszpańskiego Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 17 października 2019 roku w sprawie ekshumacji szczątków Francisca Franco Bahamondego

Marta Kłopocka-Jasińska
{"title":"Czy państwo może decydować o miejscu pochówku dyktatora? Komentarz do postanowienia hiszpańskiego Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 17 października 2019 roku w sprawie ekshumacji szczątków Francisca Franco Bahamondego","authors":"Marta Kłopocka-Jasińska","doi":"10.19195/2300-7249.43.4.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article comments on the Spanish Constitutional Court’s order of 17 October 2019, ATC 119/2020, regarding the exhumation and transfer of the remains of Francisco Franco Bahamonde from the Valley of the Fallen. Franco’s relatives brought a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court against the resolutions of the Council of Ministers of 15 February and 15 March 2019, which concerned the exhumation of the dictator’s remains and their transfer to the Mingorrrubio Cemetery in El Pardo. This was done against the wishes of the family, who had indicated another location. The applicants submitted, inter alia, that their right to respect for private and family life had been violated. In fact, certain issues relating to the treatment of the body of a deceased person fall within the scope of the right to privacy. However, the Spanish Court did not accept the applicants’ plea and held that there was no violation of the constitutional right. It justified its decision on the grounds that the right to protection of private and family life is not absolute and is subject to limitations, and that the measures applied in this case were in line with a “constitutionally legitimate aim,” proportionate and necessary. The Court’s decision is correct, although its reasoning leaves much to be desired. The Court could have strengthened its argumentation with, first, a more in-depth analysis of proportionality, and, second, with reference to Strasburg standards. In particular, as the Court pointed out, the historical and political importance of the person at the head of the political regime established after the civil war and acting as head of state meant that the decision on where to bury his remains went beyond the dimension of an individual private matter.","PeriodicalId":173985,"journal":{"name":"Studia nad Autorytaryzmem i Totalitaryzmem","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia nad Autorytaryzmem i Totalitaryzmem","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19195/2300-7249.43.4.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article comments on the Spanish Constitutional Court’s order of 17 October 2019, ATC 119/2020, regarding the exhumation and transfer of the remains of Francisco Franco Bahamonde from the Valley of the Fallen. Franco’s relatives brought a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court against the resolutions of the Council of Ministers of 15 February and 15 March 2019, which concerned the exhumation of the dictator’s remains and their transfer to the Mingorrrubio Cemetery in El Pardo. This was done against the wishes of the family, who had indicated another location. The applicants submitted, inter alia, that their right to respect for private and family life had been violated. In fact, certain issues relating to the treatment of the body of a deceased person fall within the scope of the right to privacy. However, the Spanish Court did not accept the applicants’ plea and held that there was no violation of the constitutional right. It justified its decision on the grounds that the right to protection of private and family life is not absolute and is subject to limitations, and that the measures applied in this case were in line with a “constitutionally legitimate aim,” proportionate and necessary. The Court’s decision is correct, although its reasoning leaves much to be desired. The Court could have strengthened its argumentation with, first, a more in-depth analysis of proportionality, and, second, with reference to Strasburg standards. In particular, as the Court pointed out, the historical and political importance of the person at the head of the political regime established after the civil war and acting as head of state meant that the decision on where to bury his remains went beyond the dimension of an individual private matter.
本文评论西班牙宪法法院2019年10月17日的命令,ATC 119/2020,关于从堕落谷挖掘和转移弗朗西斯科·佛朗哥·巴哈蒙德的遗体。佛朗哥的亲属向宪法法院提起宪法诉讼,反对部长会议2019年2月15日和3月15日的决议,该决议涉及发掘独裁者的遗体并将其转移到埃尔帕尔多的明戈鲁比奥公墓。这违背了家人的意愿,他们已经指出了另一个地点。申请人提出,除其他外,他们尊重私人和家庭生活的权利受到侵犯。事实上,与处理死者遗体有关的某些问题属于隐私权的范围。然而,西班牙法院不接受申请人的抗辩,并认为没有侵犯宪法权利。它为其决定辩护的理由是,保护私人和家庭生活的权利不是绝对的,并受到限制,而且在此案中采取的措施符合“合乎宪法的合法目标”,是相称的和必要的。法院的裁决是正确的,尽管其推理尚有许多不足之处。法院本可以加强其论点,首先,对相称性进行更深入的分析,其次,参照斯特拉斯堡标准。特别是,正如法院所指出的那样,内战后建立的政治制度的首脑和担任国家元首的人的历史和政治重要性意味着,在何处埋葬他的遗体的决定超出了个人私事的范畴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信