This April 15, the Government delegate in the Valencian Community Pilar Bernabé said after declaring as a witness before Judge Nuria Ruiz Tobarra that instructs the previous proceedings of the DANA case that had “been” clear “that” there is only one unique command “and that it was from the Generalitat Valenciana. This April 23, only eight days later, the former magistrate of the Supreme Court and Civil Law Professor at the University of Valencia Javier Orduña has disassembled that argument indirectly in his appearance before the Commission of Investigation on the DANA in the Senate: «There cannot be a unique command, no matter how».
Specifically, Javier Orduña has been asked to confirm that the Single Command “as such” has been “eliminated from the legal system and replaced” by a collegiate and coordinated address. “
In his response, the former Magistrate of the Supreme Court has stated that: «Expressions such as Single Command, etc., do not correspond to what is the regulations. Because There can be no single command in an autonomic area that does not have exclusive competition and that it cannot have exclusive competence over the Army, on certain areas of exclusive competence of the State that concur in an emergency ».
Javier Orduña has also explained that: «Therefore, There can be no unique command, no matter how much talk about a single command. What there is is a competence system. Therefore, I have said at the beginning that the important thing here, from the point of view of the legal analysis is to stick to the competence system ».
As explained by the Professor of Civil Law at the University of Valencia: «The competence system is marked pyramidally in our system, or not, by the Spanish Constitution. And, from there, it is marked, fundamentally, by development legislation. And I think that we have to stick. Therefore There is no unique command from a competence point of view».
Also, he stressed that public security is an “exclusive” competition of the State. And he also stressed that from his point of view the Government “was empowered” to decree the state of emergency National », because there was what he has described as” a series of circumstances “this October 29, the day of the flood, which manifested the magnitude of the tragedy.
He has also indicated that the State can incur a patrimonial responsibility for the non -performance of the works: “criminal responsibility is more doubtful, because it must be taken into account that a certain intentionality is required to cause damage.”
