Can You Stain After Waxing A Table

inapplicable, possible denial of justice and procedural problems: role

In Case October 4, 2007 (role 542) the court rejects the request filed by Telemundi Electronics Limited one in the series against the art. CT 116. But this time the Court based its rejection solely on the CIRCUMSTANCES of "absence of management where it can be implemented pending the inapplicability requested." The wording of the ruling is curious: one would have expected a rejection "because there is no pending management can take place the application of the precept." However, this curiosity could be explained by circumstances that are not fully clarified in the decision at issue. And this by the following: the action is filed on July 20, 2006. The Court does not result in the cancellation. Subsequently, (in fact the May 23, 2007) is certifica que la Corte de Apelaciones que conocía de la causa, la de Santiago, había fallado y devuelto los autos al Servicio de Impuestos Internos con fecha 17 de Noviembre del año 2006. Lo que no queda completamente claro de la sentencia del Tribunal es la fecha del fallo de la Corte de Apelaciones; sin embargo, es de presumir que no fue anterior a Octubre, o, con mucho, Septiembre del 2006, si es que para Noviembre ya había sido devuelto el expediente al Servicio. Eso significaría que a la fecha de interposición de la acción, y un tiempo después, hubo gestión pendiente en que podía incidir la aplicación del precepto.
Quisiera dejar este punto abierto, por lo gravitante que me parecen las consecuencias in the case of taking it as true. This is for the following: if the action was filed before the Court on July 20, 2006, and he did not order the suspension of proceedings, the action referred to in art. I. 93 I No. 6 could become entirely ineffective by the same procedure of the Tribunal. In general, sufficient to avoid ruling on any matter which the court denied a stay of proceedings of the respective management and await the decision of the respective instance and then fail, as it does in the role in consideration, rejecting the no action management exist yet. Obviously, "pending management which may take effect the inapplicability requested "because the management does not yet where he could have, and it took place, the application of the precept that motivated the claim of the actor.
As I said, I do not assume that this is the case, because, if so The figure seems very close to that of denial of justice, the same court procedure act constitutes a cause for rejection of the intended action.
However, the problem does not end at this point: the question raised other procedural issues. As I said Eduardo Cordero: What happens if the Court, without order suspension of the proceedings, decided to rule on the inapplicable once the matter has already been decided? How do you articulate rules of procedure (civil, criminal, etc.). delaración on this? Could it be a cause of invalidity in respect of the sentence, and if so, under what rules Shall be processed the same?

The adequacy of the Constitutional Act of the Constitutional Court for constitutional reform of 2005 does become increasingly urgent need.