The ombudswoman does not consider that the Royal Decree-Law 20/2011 violates university autonomy
The University of Barcelona, as it is not entitled to do so directly, in accordance with the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court, requested the ombudswoman, María Luisa Cava de Llano, to file an appeal of unconstitutionality against the Royal Decree-Law 20/2011, dated 30 December, on urgent measures regarding budget, tax and finance for the correction of the public deficit, because the University sees the prohibition of appointing and recruiting new staff during this financial year as a violation of the fundamental right to university autonomy, because the State assumes functions, both at self-organizational and academic level, regarding teaching and research needs, which belong exclusively to universities.
The University of Barcelona, as it is not entitled to do so directly, in accordance with the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court, requested the ombudswoman, María Luisa Cava de Llano, to file an appeal of unconstitutionality against the Royal Decree-Law 20/2011, dated 30 December, on urgent measures regarding budget, tax and finance for the correction of the public deficit, because the University sees the prohibition of appointing and recruiting new staff during this financial year as a violation of the fundamental right to university autonomy, because the State assumes functions, both at self-organizational and academic level, regarding teaching and research needs, which belong exclusively to universities.
The ombudswoman has decided not to lodge an appeal of unconstitutionality, because after analyzing the allegations made by the UB in its request, although she admits that “after examining these precepts, it is not easy to determine the extent to which they affect the essential content of the right to university autonomy”, she also takes into account that the Royal Decree-Law 20/2011 only “limits staff recruitment temporarily, and makes it conditional upon budgetary forecasts”. Hence she claims that it does not affect the core of this fundamental right.
The Rector’s Offices of the UB do not share this decision, although they respect it, and consider that the fact that the Constitutional Court has not been able to hear this University’s arguments implies a limitation that affects directly and indirectly the proper functioning of the public service of higher education. Consequently, they will continue finding new ways to legitimize their defence and preserve university autonomy.