in November 2003,161 but did not obtain the approval of the majority in the Chamber of Representatives, and thus was not enacted.162 A.2.h) Judicial actions following the administrative procedure before the Central Bank h.1) Appeal for annulment of the decisions of the Central Bank before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal 101. An appeal for annulment of the decisions of the Board of the Central Bank could be made before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal,163 which is a jurisdictional body that is not part of the Judiciary and is independent of the three branches of State.164 According to article 309 of the Uruguayan Constitution165 and article 23 of Law No. 15,524,166 in the appeal for annulment, the plaintiffs have to prove that “the contested administrative acts were contrary to a rule of law or had been issued with misuse, abuse or excess of power.”167 161 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio Herrera of February 14, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1060 and 1061); bill of June 4, 2003, presented to the Senate by Senator Julio Herrera (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 8, folio 31520); bill entitled “Clients of the Banco de Montevideo and La Caja Obrera whose saving were applied to the acquisition of certificates of deposit in foreign financial institutions” approved by the Senate of November 12, 2003 (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 8, folio 31521), and record of the parliamentary processing of Matter No. 22109 concerning the bill presented by Senator Julio Herrera (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 8, folios 31524 and 31527) 162 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio Herrera of February 14, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folios 1060 and 1061); Testimony of the witness Julio Cardozo before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case, and record of the parliamentary processing of Matter No. 22109 concerning the bill presented by Senator Julio Herrera (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 8, folios 31525 and 31530). 163 Cf. Expert testimony of Daniel Hugo Martins before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 164 Cf. Expert testimony of Daniel Hugo Martins before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case and written report on this testimony submitted on March 4, 2011 (file on merits and possible reparations, volume III, folio 1259). 165 Article 309 of the Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay establishes: The Contentious-Administrative Tribunal shall hear appeals for annulment of final administrative acts executed by the Administration in the exercise of its functions, which are contrary to a rule of law or involves misuse of power. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall include also final administrative acts executed by the other organs of State, the departmental governments, the autonomous entities, and the decentralized services. The appeal for annulment may only be exercised by the holder of a right or a direct, personal and legitimate interest that has been violated or harmed by the administrative act. Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 12, folio 12864). 166 Article 23 of Law 15,524 establishes: In particular, and without the need for specific details, the following shall be considered the object of the appeal for annulment: a) Administrative decisions that are unilateral, treaty-based or of any other nature, issued involving misuse, abuse or excess or power, or violation of a rule of law, understood as any principle of law or constitutional, legislative, regulatory or contractual norm. b) Those decisions that can be separated from administrative contracts. c) Those decisions that have been issued while the statutory relationship between the State organ and the public official subject to its authority is in force, relating to any type of claim concerning the matter regulated by it, even if it is of a purely financial nature. Decree Law 15.524, entitled “Regulatory Framework. Administrative Tribunal” (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 15, folio 13011). 167 Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13875). See also, inter alia, Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious- 39