Reserva de jurisdicción: tutela judicial efectiva y custodia de menores (Comentario a la STC 185/2012, de 17 de octubre)

The study is about the STC 185/2012, which asserted the unconstitutionality the «favorable» term as a prerequisite of the report of the Public Prosecutor which the legislator established so the judge could impose the joint custody of the children by their parents separated when they disagreed among themselves for that type of custody. The unconstitutionality declared is twofold: because such regulation violated the principle of jurisdictional reservation in favor of the judges and courts proclaimed in the art. 117.3 CE, and because it quite the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in the art. 24.1 CE. The decision has a dissenting opinion signed by four judges, which denies such studs: on the one side, taking as examples some legal determinations envelope whose constitutionality is no doubt and, that consequently warrantee the questioned regulation; on the other side, and above all, founding that his trial constitutional conformity in the Court’s doctrine about the notion of «normative density», which covers the legislator to regulate detail matters. The comment aims to demonstrate that the examples that are compared in the dissenting opinion declared unconstitutional regulation are not comparable to this, and that such a constitutional doctrine about the «normative density» was not applicable either to the same. So the impossibility that the judge imposed the shared custody of children in case of disagreement of the parents about it if the report of the Prosecutor was opposite (or simply neutral or non-existent) was, indeed, non-conforming with the jurisdictional exclusivity of the judges and violated the right to effective judicial protection at stake in such cases.El estudio tiene por objeto el comentario de la STC 185/2012, de 17 de octubre, que declara inconstitucional el término «favorable» como condición imprescindible del informe del Ministerio Fiscal que el legislador establecía para que el juez pudiese decretar la custodia compartida de los hijos menores por sus progenitores separados cuando estos discrepaban entre ellos sobre la misma. La inconstitucionalidad declarada es doble: porque tal regulación vulneraba el principio de reserva jurisdiccional en favor de los jueces y tribunales que dispone el art. 117.3 CE y porque lesionaba el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva garantizado en el art. 24.1 CE. La Sentencia tiene un Voto Particular disidente suscrito por varios Magistrados, que niega tales tachas: de un lado, poniendo como ejemplos algunas determinaciones legales sobre cuya constitucionalidad no hay duda y que en consecuencia avalarían la regulación cuestionada; y, de otro y sobre todo, fundando esa juicio de conformidad constitucional del precepto cuestionado en la doctrina del propio Tribunal acerca de la noción de «densidad normativa», que ampara al legislador para regular pormenorizadamente las materias objeto de su atención. El comentario pretende demostrar que los ejemplos con los que se compara en el Voto Particular la regulación declarada inconstitucional no son equiparables a ésta y que tal doctrina constitucional sobre la «densidad normativa» no resultaba aplicable tampoco a la misma. De modo que la imposibilidad de que el juez decretase la custodia compartida de menores en caso de desacuerdo de sus progenitores sobre ella si el informe del Fiscal era contrario (o simplemente neutro o inexistente) era, en efecto, disconforme con la exclusividad jurisdiccional de los jueces y no se compadecía con la tutela judicial efectiva en juego en tales supuestos.The study is about the STC 185/2012, which asserted the unconstitutionality the «favorable» term as a prerequisite of the report of the Public Prosecutor which the legislator established so the judge could impose the joint custody of the children by their parents separated when they disagreed among themselves for that type of custody. The unconstitutionality declared is twofold: because such regulation violated the principle of jurisdictional reservation in favor of the judges and courts proclaimed in the art. 117.3 CE, and because it quite the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in the art. 24.1 CE. The decision has a dissenting opinion signed by four judges, which denies such studs: on the one side, taking as examples some legal determinations envelope whose constitutionality is no doubt and, that consequently warrantee the questioned regulation; on the other side, and above all, founding that his trial constitutional conformity in the Court’s doctrine about the notion of «normative density», which covers the legislator to regulate detail matters. The comment aims to demonstrate that the examples that are compared in the dissenting opinion declared unconstitutional regulation are not comparable to this, and that such a constitutional doctrine about the «normative density» was not applicable either to the same. So the impossibility that the judge imposed the shared custody of children in case of disagreement of the parents about it if the report of the Prosecutor was opposite (or simply neutral or non-existent) was, indeed, non-conforming with the jurisdictional exclusivity of the judges and violated the right to effective judicial protection at stake in such case