Abstract
In the wake of events in Catalonia, the various processes of statutory reform that have taken place in Spain in recent years have focused particular attention on regulating institutional relations between Autonomous Communities. Accordingly, it can be stated that including legal sections specifically devoted to said question in the revised basic institutional norms of the Autonomies, in which the various spatial expressions of autonomous community relations are set out, emerges as one of the main features characterising the major changes to the content concerning relations. In this vein, we should remember that, although institutional relations do not figure in the list of necessary contents that Article 147.2 of the Spanish Constitution (SC) assigns to the statutory norm, such relations’ direct link to self-government entirely justifies their inclusion in the basic institutional norm of the Autonomous Community. What needs to be clarified, therefore, is not the question of whether they should be included in the statute but rather the constitutional limits to which they should be subject.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the first-generation Statutes, regulation of autonomous community relations with other entities was restricted to those of a horizontal nature: that is to say, to those with other autonomous bodies. Leaving aside said area, however, the general guideline places us in a regulatory context dominated by the absence of statutory references to other spatial expressions regarding relations.
- 2.
García Morales (2009), p. 363.
- 3.
Albertí Rovira (2006), p. 716.
- 4.
Regulatory expression of bilateralism, however, is not confined solely to the previously cited Commission. Adopting a clearly specific genetic code from a material point of view, the Generalitat-State Joint Commission for Economic and Fiscal Affairs (Article 210.1, SAC) assumes significant competences in the field of Autonomous Community financing, forming a privileged forum for dialogue and harmonisation with central power.
- 5.
A further point to remember is that the underlying tone of the Catalan commitment to bilateralism was adopted by the reformed text of the Statute of Andalusia as regards its expression in regulatory terms, a Bilateral Commission being set up between the Andalusian Government and the State with a list of functions that was practically identical to its counterpart in Catalonia. Nevertheless, compared to the concept of the relations with the State envisaged under Article 3.1, SAC (The Generalitat’s relations with the State are founded on the principle of mutual institutional loyalty and are governed by the principle of autonomy, bilateralism, and multilateralism), the Andalusian norm (Article 219.1, Statute of Autonomy of Andalusia) introduced significant differences, stipulating that said Autonomous Community’s relations with the State were to be conducted “within the framework of the principle of solidarity” and based on “collaboration, cooperation, loyalty and mutual help”.
- 6.
Cruz Villalón (2006), p. 84, refers to the presence in the text of the new Catalan Statute of an “unmistakeable spirit of bilateralism as a strategic criterion for relations with the State”.
- 7.
In this respect, the provision contained in Article 147.2 d) of the Spanish Constitution should be placed first, indicating as “necessary” content of the Statute of Autonomy not only “the competences assumed within the framework established in the Constitution” but also (with regard to our argument) “the rules for transferring the services corresponding to said competences”. Thus, be it only tacitly, it is in the constitutional provision itself where the existence and justification of this expression of bilateralism is anchored.
- 8.
Aja Fernández (2003), p. 215.
- 9.
Said commissions were set up in all the Autonomous Communities, thereby leading to a spread of bilateralism that, in the words of Corretja et al. (2011), p. 32, gave rise to a situation of “multi-bilateralism”.
- 10.
It should be recalled that Constitutional Court Ruling 76/1983, Legal basis 28, expressly underlines the existence of a “competence reserve” in favour of said commissions.
- 11.
Corretja et al. (2011), p. 31, op. cit.
- 12.
Ridaura Martínez (2009), p. 106, reminds us of the chronology in the process of creating said Commissions: the series commenced in 1983 with the creation of the Cooperation Board of the Autonomous Community of Navarre. By 1987, those corresponding to Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Country, and Andalusia had already been set up. In 1988, the Commissions corresponding to the Regions of Murcia and La Rioja held their first meetings. Those corresponding to the Balearic Islands (1989), the Canary Islands and Aragon (1990), Cantabria (1991), Castilla-Leon and Extremadura (1992), Asturias (1993), Castilla-La Mancha (1996), the Valencian Community and Madrid (2000) were subsequently constituted. Those corresponding to the cities of Ceuta and Melilla held their constituent meetings in 1995.
- 13.
García Morales (2009), p. 369, op. cit., interprets this intense generalist character, which is typical of Bilateral Commissions, as reflecting their nature as “non-specific platforms”.
- 14.
Section 1 of said precept establishes the generic foundation for two-way collaboration when stating that “The General Administration of the State and the Administration of the Autonomous Communities can create organisations for cooperation between both of a bilateral or multilateral composition, of a general or sectorial scope, in those subject-matters where an interrelation of competences exists, exercising coordination and cooperation, as may be required”. Section 2 confers explicit approval of Bilateral Commissions, outlining their main defining features as (a) non-specific nature or general character (“cooperation bodies … of the general sphere”), (b) intergovernmental nature (“members of the Government, in representation of the General Administration of the State and members of the Government Council, in representation of the respective Autonomous Community”), (c) voluntary constitution and power of self-regulation (“its creation is carried out by agreement which determines the essential elements of its rules”).
- 15.
García Morales (2009), p. 368, op. cit., draws attention to the fact that these commissions “have proved far less important than multilateral mechanisms, to the point that they have been symbolic in many cases”.
- 16.
“Notwithstanding the stipulations set out in the previous section, the President of the Government, together with the official executive bodies of the Autonomous Communities, may lodge an appeal of unconstitutionality within a period of 9 months against laws, provisions or acts which have the status of Law, in regard to which, and in an effort to avoid said appeal from being lodged, the following requirements are met:
-
a.
That the Bilateral Cooperation Commission involving the General Administration and State and the respective Autonomous Community meet, either of the two authorities having the power to request said meeting be convened.
-
b.
That an agreement be adopted by the above-mentioned Bilateral Commission concerning the commencement of negotiations to solve discrepancies. Should it prove necessary, a requirement may be put forward for the regulatory text to be changed. Such an agreement may or may not call for the norm to be suspended should the appeal be lodged within the period stipulated in the present section.
-
c.
That the Constitutional Court be notified of the agreement by the above-mentioned bodies within a period of 3 months subsequent to the Law, provision, or act which has the status of Law being published in the Official State Bulletin and in the Official Gazette of the corresponding Autonomous Community”.
-
a.
- 17.
For comprehensive information regarding the activities undertaken in this area by the various Bilateral Commissions, see García Morales (2009), pp. 386–389, op. cit.
- 18.
A detailed reflection regarding the problem posed in the text can be found in González Beilfuss (2008), p. 33.
- 19.
París Domenech (2006), p. 399 expressly states that “the SAC seeks to go beyond the framework of relations which has naturally been established”.
- 20.
See note 5.
- 21.
In this regard, we fully concur with the view of Cruz Villalón (2006), p. 84, op. cit.,: “The essential problem of this process is the order of factors, which is important since it is clear they should have begun with the Constitution and then continued with the Statutes”.
- 22.
This idea is not neutralised by resorting to the otherwise unquestionable argument that the Statute is not the ideal normative framework for regulating multilateralism, as it goes beyond its area of competences. The determinant point in this respect is that, beyond the literal tone of Article 3.1 SAC, a complete and systematic reading of the reformed basic institutional norm of Catalonia clearly shows an unequivocal preference for the bilateral option, a direct dialogue being established between central power and the Generalitat.
- 23.
Corretja, Vintró, Bernadí (2011), p. 36, op. cit.
- 24.
“In matters which affect its competences, the Generalitat participates in national decision-making institutions, organisations and procedures, in application of the stipulations set out in the present Statute and Laws”.
- 25.
Thus, the Generalitat’s capacity to participate in appointing members of state organisations is envisaged. This is affirmed in relation to the General Council of the Judiciary and the Constitutional Court “in the terms which the laws establish or, where appropriate, the parliamentary code” (Article 180, SAC). A similar provision can be found in Article 182, devoted to the “appointment (by the Generalitat) of representatives in financial and social organisations”. In such instances, Autonomous Community participation will also always be bound by “the terms set out in the relevant legislation”.
- 26.
Roig Molés (2006), p. 169, maintains that autonomic participation in decisional processes included in the state sphere is “an implicit element of our system”.
- 27.
Other functions assigned to the Bilateral Commission concern the following matters: gaming and betting (Article 141.2, SAC) and infrastructures and equipment under State ownership in Catalonia (Article 149.2).
- 28.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 13.
- 29.
Ibidem (our italics).
- 30.
Ibidem.
- 31.
Ibidem.
- 32.
Ibidem.
- 33.
Balaguer Callejón (2011), p. 461.
- 34.
Corretja, Vintró, Bernadí (2011), p. 3, op. cit.
- 35.
F. Balaguer Callejón (2011), pp. 462–463, op. cit., draws attention to one key concept that the Court has overlooked in its approach, namely, “Superiority of the State over the Autonomous Communities is reflected in certain constitutional techniques, but may not be resorted to with regard to bilateral cooperation mechanisms, which must be based on a scrupulous respect for respective competences”. For their part, Corretja, Vintró, Bernadí (2011), p. 4, op. cit. consider that the Constitutional Court’s argument “reflects its mistrust of the principle of bilateralism and the possibility that such a principle may allow Catalonia to adopt a unique position within the State concerning a range of matters”.
- 36.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 111 (our italics).
- 37.
Ibidem (our italics).
- 38.
One view that is openly critical in this regard is held by París Domenech (2006), p. 403, op. cit., who states that the Constitutional Court’s interpretation “strips of all content the idea of participation that is set out in the statutory text, it now being forced to depend on political will and not on the concept of the Autonomous State, and denies a practice which is widespread and already envisaged in various legal systems”.
- 39.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 115.
- 40.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 115.
- 41.
Ibidem.
- 42.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 116.
- 43.
Ibidem.
- 44.
Ibidem.
- 45.
Corretja, Vintró, Bernadí (2011), p. 38 op. cit., level their criticism at the Constitutional Court, feeling that the arguments put forward evidence “echoes of the nineteenth century, far removed from the dynamics of parliamentary systems of government”.
- 46.
F. Balaguer Callejón (2011), p. 464, op. cit., is critical of the position adopted by the Constitutional Court on this matter: “The statutory precept is so clear that it specifically contemplates the instance in which the State, as a result of not being bound by the decision it must adopt, opts to take the contrary position to that held by the Generalitat (which it could not do if it were bound). It is therefore difficult to understand why there is such insistence on repeating something which is so obvious”.
- 47.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 117.
- 48.
Balaguer Callejón (2011), p. 463, op. cit.
- 49.
Ibidem.
- 50.
Ibidem.
- 51.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 86.
- 52.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 92.
- 53.
Constitutional Court Ruling 31/2010, Legal basis 120.
- 54.
Ibidem.
- 55.
Ibidem.
- 56.
Roig Molés (2006), p. 172, op. cit.
- 57.
Cámara Villar (2004), p. 207.
References
E. Aja Fernández, El Estado Autonómico. Federalismo y Hechos Diferenciales, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2003, page 215.
E. Albertí Rovira; “¿Pueden los Estatutos suplir el déficit constitucional relativo a la previsión de relaciones intergubernamentales? (Las relaciones de las Comunidades Autónomas con el Estado, las demás Comunidades y la Unión Europea en las reformas actuales de los Estatutos de Autonomía)”, in G. Ruiz-Rico (coord.), La reforma de los Estatutos de Autonomia, University of Jaen/Tirant lo blanch, Valencia, 2006, page 716.
F. Balaguer Callejón, “La incidencia de la STC 31/2010 en la formulación estatutaria de las relaciones entre la Generalitat de Cataluña y el Estado”, Revista de Estudios Federales y Autonómicos, issue 12, 2011, page 461.
G. Cámara Villar, “El principio y las relaciones de colaboración entre el Estado y las CCAA”, Revista de Derecho Constitucional Europeo, issue 1, 2004, page 207.
P. Cruz Villalón, “La reforma del Estado de las Autonomías”, Revista Estudios Autonómicos y Federales, issue 2, 2006, page 84.
M. Corretja-J. Vintró-X. Bernadí, “Bilateralidad y multilateralidad. La participación de la Generalitat en políticas y organismos estatales, y la Comisión Bilateral,”, Revista de Estudios Autonómicos y Federales, issue 12, 2011, page 32.
M. J. García Morales: “Los nuevos Estatutos de Autonomía y las relaciones de colaboración. Un nuevo escenario, ¿una nueva etapa?” Revista Jurídica de Castilla y León, issue 19, 2009, page 363.
M. González Beilfuss, “La resolución judicial de las discrepancias competenciales entre el Estado y las Comunidades Autónomas: el mecanismo del artículo 33.2 LOTC”, in J. Tornos Mas (dir.): Informe Comunidades Autónomas 2007, Instituto de Derecho Público, Barcelona, 2008, page 33.
N. París Domenech, “Las relaciones institucionales de la Generalitat en la Sentencia sobre el Estatuto de Autonomía de Cataluña”, Revista catalana de dret públic, Special edition on Ruling 31/2010, regarding the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, page 399.
M. J. Ridaura Martínez, Relaciones intergubernamentales: Estado-Comunidad Autónoma, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2009, note 128, page 106.
E. Roig Molés, “La reforma del Estado de las Autonomías: ¿ruptura o consolidación del modelo constitucional de 1978?” Revista de Estudios Autonómicos y Federales, issue 3, 2006, page 169.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carmona-Contreras, A.M. (2013). The Principle of Bilateralism in the Statutory Reforms Following Constitutional Court Ruling: STC 31/2010. Desire and Reality. In: López - Basaguren, A., Escajedo San Epifanio, L. (eds) The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27717-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27717-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27716-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27717-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)