NICARAGUAN SUPREME COURT CLOSES NATIONAL PROPERTY APPEALS

UNCLAS MANAGUA 000238 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR WHA/CEN, EEB/IFD/OIA, AND L/CID E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EINV ECON PGOV NU SUBJECT: NICARAGUAN SUPREME COURT CLOSES NATIONAL PROPERTY APPEALS COURT REF: 08 MANAGUA 1546; 09 MANAGUA 1035 SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) The Nicaraguan Supreme Court administratively closed the National Property Appeals Court on December 20, 2009. The Supreme Court decided to close the appellate body because it was slow, inefficient, and had a backlog of casework. The pending cases were transferred to the Managua Civil Appeals Court. The closing of the court is significant for two reasons. First, there remain 16 pending U.S. citizen cases awaiting a hearing. Second, legal experts complain that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to close the court. They also note that the Managua Civil Appeals Court already has a backload of cases. The Supreme Court's action means U.S. citizens will continue confronting additional challenges in getting a fair hearing in a judicial system that is highly influenced by outside political forces. SUPREME COURT CLOSES NATIONAL PROPERTY APPEALS COURT -------------- -------------- ¶2. (U) On December 20, 2009, the Nicaraguan Supreme Court issued an administrative order to close the National Property Appeals Court. The National Property Appeals Court was the highest appellate body for property issues. The Supreme Court decided to close the National Property Appeals Court because it was slow, inefficient, and had a backlog of casework. All cases pending adjudication by the National Property Appeals Court were transferred to the Managua Civil Appeals Court. The National Property Appeals Court was established by Law 278 (1997) to address property issues resulting from actions taken by the first Sandinista Government from 1979-1990. Specifically, the court dealt with cases that arose from the widespread confiscation of private property and the passage of Laws 85/1990 and 88/1990, known as the Pi????ata Laws (Ref A),which legalized the transfer of ownership of private property to occupants who had physical possession of the land but did not have title to it. CLOSURE AFFECTS U.S. CASES AND RULE OF LAW -------------- ¶3. (U) The closing of the appellate court negatively affects 16 U.S. cases awaiting a hearing. According to Nicaraguan law, the courts hear cases based on the date that they were filed in the judicial system and then assigned to judges. Several U.S. claimants have waited more than ten years for a court decision. During the January 28, Property Working Group meeting, Government of Nicaragua (GON) officials acknowledged that they had no information on how the Supreme Court would transfer cases that were in the National Property Appeals Court to the Managua Civil Appeals Court, or whether those cases would receive priority over other cases that were already registered in the civil appellate court. ¶4. (SBU) Another issue concerning the closing of the National Property Appeals Court is that it appears that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to close the appellate body. Mauro Ampie, an expert on Nicaraguan constitutional law, explained that the National Assembly has the sole authority to close the court by either amending Law 278 or passing a new law to abolish it. He views the Supreme Court's action as a clear violation of the Nicaraguan constitution and another setback for the rule of law here (Ref B). CIVIL COURTS ALREADY BACKLOGGED -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Sergio Corrales, a lawyer who specializes in property law, asserted that the closure of the National Property Appeals Court will increase the backlog of cases in the Managua Civil Appeals Court. He said that the systemic problems in the judicial branch, such as the appointment of politically-affiliated, incompetent judges and a lack of funding to provide administrative and legal staff for justices, are the reasons for the backlog. He opined that closing the National Property Appeals Court further exacerbates the judicial branch's difficulty to handle its workload in a timely, professional manner. COMMENT -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The closure of the National Property Appeals Court is the latest example of Sandinista National Liberation Front judicial activism that usurps the constitutional responsibility of another branch of government. The Embassy Property Office has advised U.S. claimants who had pending cases in the National Property Appeals Court to contact the Supreme Court or the Managua Civil Appeals Court to follow up on their cases. Even if the Managua Appeals Court were capable of registering their cases and adjudicating them in a timely manner, U.S. citizens will continue confronting challenges in seeking a fair hearing in a judicial system that is highly influenced by outside political forces. CALLAHAN