12 the disciplinary tribunals.31 At the time this Judgment is delivered neither have the disciplinary tribunals been created nor the Ethics Code adopted, for which reason such provisional bodies are still exercising the aforementioned powers. 30. The First Court was created by Article 184 of the Ley Orgánica de la Corte Suprema de Justicia [Supreme Court of Justice Organic Law] of July 30, 1976.32 The First Court has jurisdiction, inter alia, to hear cases regarding the control of all administrative acts issued by all branches of government, except those issued by the President of the Republic and the Ministers thereof,33 and the judgments it delivers may be appealed only before the STJ.34 31. On September 12, 2000 the Plenary Chamber of the STJ appointed Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Evelyn Margarita Marrero Ortiz, Luisa Estela Morales, Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera and Perkins Rocha Contreras “to provisionally hold office as Judges of the First Court,”35 and such appointment was made “for the time until such offices are filled according to the outcome of the pertinent public competitive selection processes.”36 32. On June 11, 2002 the First Court delivered a judgment ruling on a petition for precautionary amparo and an appeal to the judiciary for annulment of an act issued by the Registrador Subalterno del Primer Circuito de Registro Público del Municipio Baruta del Estado Miranda [First Circuit Recording Office Junior Registrar in the Baruta Township of Miranda State]. Such official refused to record a piece of real estate. The First Court, unanimously, declared the amparo to be in order and admitted the proceedings for annulment.37 On October 8, 2002 the aforementioned Junior Registrar’s Office requested the CPAM to remove the case related to the precautionary amparo from the jurisdiction of the First Court and to determine it directly, among other matters.38 On this point this Court verifies that the removal of proceedings is an exceptional legal remedy,39 which allows a case to be taken away from a judicial body that would be naturally competent to hear and decide it. This happens when the proceedings in question “go beyond private interest to affect directly public interest”, or when there is “a need to avoid flagrant injustices.”40 31 Cf. Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia [STJ Organic Law] of May 18, 2004, published on May 20, 2004, published on May 20, 2004 in Official Gazette No. 37.942 (File on the Merits, Book IV, pp. 1141 to 1146). 32 Cf. Ley Orgánica of the Corte Suprema de Justicia [Supreme Court of Justice Organic Law] of July 30, 1976, published on July 30, 1976 in Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 1.893 (Evidence file, Book I, Annex A.9, pp. 152 to 186). 33 Cf. article 185 of the Supreme Court of Justice Organic Law, supra note 32, and declaration before a public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Ana María Ruggeri on April 4, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, p. 725). 34 Cf. article 185, part 8, paragraph 2 of the Supreme Court of Justice Organic Law, supra note 32. 35 Cf. record of the session of the Plenary Chamber of September 12, 2000, issued by the STJ and published on November 20, 2000 in Official Gazette No. 37.081 (Evidence file, Book V, pp. 1339 and 1340). 36 Cf. record of the swearing-in of the First Court Judges, issued by the Clerk of the STJ on September 15, 2000 (Evidence file, Book V, p. 1338). 37 Cf. judgment No. 1430 of June 11, 2002 issued by the First Court (Evidence file, Book VIII, Annex Ñ, pp. 2579 to 2593). 38 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by CPAM (File of Annexes to the Application, Book III, Annex B.3.a, pp. 1007 to 1034). 39 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by CPAM, supra note 38, p. 1027. 40 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by CPAM, supra note 38, p. 1027.