The recent ruling of the Antofagasta Court of Appeals that forced the Carabineros and the Municipality to eradicate illegal street vendors from the center, set a precedent in this matter that during the end of last year caused havoc in the historic center, and that although it was temporarily cleared in the arteries of Prat and Matta, it still persists in the surrounding streets, from which those who carry out illegal trade must also be expelled, according to the resolution of the magistrates.
The deadline for this to happen is 60 days, as the judges unanimously decided after accepting a protection appeal filed by a group of established small business owners.
“The lack of a real solution has meant that the merchants established in the central sector of the city, especially in the area detailed in the appeal, have had to bear the consequences of the inefficiency in the municipal and police actions,” says the ruling, which also adds that the Court will order that the aforementioned institutions, together with the Regional Administration, the Regional Government, the Investigative Police, the Health Seremi and the Internal Revenue Service.
To dig deeper into this bug, Timeline.cl talked with him Minister Eric Sepúlveda Casanova, President of the Antofagasta Court of Appeals, who from the beginning states that “the spirit of this ruling is that the municipal control be permanent”.
- What led to this ruling on street vendors?
The three ministers who make up the Chamber, come to an obvious question, which is common sense, because the situation of street vendors occurs in all cities, as in Antofagasta. All the hassles involved, all the undercover crime, and on top of this illegal and unfair competition with the established trade that pays for their patents and permits. All of this, which affects the city’s beautification and quality of life, especially in the center, leads us to demand that the municipality fulfill its role, and coordinate with the police forces, and that the rest of the agencies in charge of to control, to control this situation and to demand that trade be carried out in accordance with the law.
- Did you settle that the first responsibility then is of the municipality?
Yes. In the first place, because the municipality has within the law the powers and the obligation to maintain the roads and the environment in the commune in good condition. And, furthermore, for a very simple reason, because the municipality has municipal inspectors, through whom they have a supervisory role so that municipal permits are paid.
- What right were being violated for merchants?
Equality before the law, in the sense that they are confronted by people who carry out commerce without demanding the same requirements from them, such as the declaration of activities, permit payments and municipal patents. The property right is also violated in relation to the commercial activity that they are carrying out, on that they already have a property right violated through this illegal and unfair competition.
- What happens if it is not fulfilled within 60 days?
I couldn’t tell you specifically, but The Court established these terms and guidelines so that it is a permanent situation and that the necessary measures are adopted. It is true, as the municipality said, that they had adopted some measures, which had reduced illegal trade, but the resource was accepted because it exists, even if it is a part where it subsists, and so that it is maintained over time.
- Could it be replicated in other areas where there is also a high presence of street vendors, such as fairs?
Obviously, everyone has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals and to the courts established by law, I could not tell you what the result will be in that case, because we were resolving a particular situation, and each ruling and sentence is particular, not it has an effect on people other than those involved in the trial.
- If during these 60 days established by the ruling, the street vendors returned to Prat and Matta, does the same obligation apply to get them out of there according to this same ruling?
Sure, that’s the idea.
