35 request.144 B.3 The decision of the Supreme Court of Justice to transfer the right of use of RCTV assets 94. On May 22, 2007, the representatives of the following audience groups: “José Leonardo Chirinos”, “Satélite Popular”, “27 de Febrero”, “Fabricio Ojeda”, “Josefa Camejo”, “Observación”, “Yaracoop”, “Yurikli”, “La Voz que se Ve”, “Ojo Visor” and “AIPO”, the CTI Casa de Alimentación and the San Bernardino Community Radio; in other words, parties unaffiliated with RCTV, filed an application for constitutional amparo before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “SCJ”), together with a petition seeking unspecified interim measures against the MINCI, the MPPTI and the Venezuelan Public Television Foundation (Fundación Televisora Venezolana Social) (hereinafter “TVes”) The application was registered as Case No. 07-0720. Based on statements made by public officials, the applicants alleged that the new station, which would transmit programs on the frequency once assigned to RCTV, did not have the broadcasting and repeater infrastructure and equipment required to ensure nation-wide coverage of its transmissions. Consequently, they understood that “the National Executive ha[d] not taken all necessary measures […] to ensure that all citizens, nationwide, would be able to enjoy the transmissions of the new public television station, after May 28, 2007, as had been repeatedly announced, creating a legitimate expectation of their entitlement to receive a quality public television service.” The applicants thus sought to protect their basic rights to legitimate expectations, to non-discrimination and to obtain a quality public service. Accordingly, inter alia, they requested the Constitutional Chamber to order interim measures to give TVes temporary access, use and exploitation of the equipment used by RCTV for the use and exploitation of the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, irrespective of who owned or possessed it.145 95. On May 25, 2007 the Constitutional Chamber issued Decision No. 956, in which: (i) it admitted the application for amparo against the three defendants, referring to it as an application seeking protection of joint and separate interests, and (ii) ordered, by unspecified interim measures, the temporary transfer to CONATEL of the use of assets owned by RCTV, such as “high frequency waves, teleports, transmitters, auxiliary television equipment, auxiliary power and climate control equipment, towers, antennas, broadcasting booths, station booths, perimeter fencing, and electrical connections.”146 Pursuant to this decision, CONATEL would grant the use of these assets to TVes. The Chamber also ordered that interested parties be notified by an announcement in one of the national newspapers with the highest circulation, so that they were considered notified. In that regard, the decision emphasized that “because the purpose of the application is to protect diverse interests, interveners may only submit evidence pertaining to the allegations made by the parties for whom they intervene.”147 Cf. Resolution No. 002 of the Ministry of the People’s Power for Telecommunications and Information Technology of March 28, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3392 and 3393). 144 145 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 26321 to 26326). 146 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 26347). 147 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0720, Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3460). In a separate opinion, Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz expressed his disagreement with the interim measure ordered by the Constitutional Chamber, indicating, inter alia, that: (i) “the continuity of the [public television] service would have been guaranteed to much greater effect if the measure had permitted the current operator of the radio spectrum to remain in operation on a provisional basis, until the decision on this case is handed down”; (ii) the measure “means that one element of [RCTV’s] right to property, (the use) of the assets affected is being taken away, without indicating the legal grounds for this measure, and (iii) although it is stated that the measure granted is temporary, its duration has not been specified. Dissenting opinion of Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz on Decision No. 956 of May 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 26351 to 26355).