(MENAFN- Newsroom Panama)
The Third Contentious Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected an incident of recusal filed by the Administration attorney, Rigoberto González, to separate Judge Cecilio Cedalise from the compensation claim filed by Abdul Waked against the National Bank of Panama (BNP) and the Panamanian State, for an amount of $1.268 billion
Through Edict No. 1574, posted in the Third Chamber of the Court on June 24, the parties were notified of the decision made by Judges Carlos Vásquez and María Cristina Chen de Stanziola.
The appeal filed is based on the fact that, in González's opinion, Judge Cedalise has issued opinions that affect his impartiality in this case.
The challenge filed in August 2020 claims that Cedalise has raised 'critical value judgments, of clear and sufficient forcefulness', in relation to the case, which is still under discussion by the Third Chamber.
This criterion was not shared by magistrates Vásquez Reyes and Chen Stanziola, so Cedalise will continue to hear the process.
In 2018, Waked filed a $1.268 billion claim against BNP for compensation for alleged damages.
In his lawsuit, , Waked argues that he was pressured by the BNP – an entity that acted as trustee – when signing the trust to which he transferred the Soho Mall shopping center, in July 2016, after being included in a sanction list of the US Treasury Department.
González recalled that on August 21, 2019, the Third Chamber decided, by the majority, not to admit a similar claim by Waked against the BNP, for the alleged damages it suffered when transferring the Felix chain of stores to a trust, a similar maneuver to the one in Soho Mall.
On that occasion, Cedalise issued a save vote by not agreeing with the decision of the rest of the magistrates of the Chamber. The Chamber then considered that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve this conflict.
Cedalise issued a save vote, since –according to him– that trust“is of an administrative nature, as its purpose is to satisfy a public interest and have exorbitant clauses”.
González decided to appeal the admission of the Soho Mall lawsuit, but Cedalise rejected it on the grounds that the appeal was unfounded.
Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.