38 violations of those laws; that RCTV had never been subject to any criminal or administrative proceedings, and that the decision would be enforced by officials who had already made public statements about the case, including about the reasons for the decision. 104. The decision on the application for amparo was still pending on March 28, 2007, the date on which CONATEL issued Communication No. 0424 and Resolution No. 002. On April 2, 2007, the applicants reframed their original application to rebut the terms of the official decision not to renew RCTV’s concession.159 105. On May 17, 2007, the SCJ ruled on the amparo.160 In its decision, the Constitutional Chamber declared that it was competent to hear the application. However, it found the application to be inadmissible with regard to the President of the Republic, because only CONATEL had the authority to take a decision on the legal status of the concession granted to RCTV. It also found that the application was inadmissible with regard to the MPPTI because, under article 6.1 of the Organic Law of Amparo for Protection of Fundamental Rights and Guarantees, for the said application to be admissible the harm denounced had to exist. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber considered that, in this case, the complaint referred to a presumed omission by the MPPTI; “however, during the processing of the application for amparo, the presumed offender issued the omitted response, so that […] the harm denounced had ceased.”161 The Chamber also declared the application inadmissible under article 6.5 of the Amparo Law, which established that an application shall not be admitted “[w]hen the aggrieved party has chosen to have recourse to the ordinary court system or has made use of pre-existing judicial remedies.” According to the Chamber, the aggrieved party had another suitable judicial remedy to contest the administrative acts in question, such as a remedy under administrative law seeking nullification, which could have been exercised in combination with a request for interim measures. The Chamber pointed out that RCTV had already filed such an action before the Political-Administrative Chamber of the SCJ on April 17, 2007, and noted that “there is no evidence in the case file to suggest that a de facto situation exists that would allow it to be asserted that the applicant would inevitably suffer harm or that the harm denounced might become irreparable if it was necessary to use and exhaust that judicial remedy first.”162 106. On May 10, 2007, RCTV filed an application for amparo, which was decided on May 24, that year.163 In this application, which was processed as Case No. 07-0647, RCTV requested that implementation of the National Telecommunications, Information Technology and Postal Services Plan 2007-2013 be halted until the State had adopted it formally. The Constitutional Chamber declared this application inadmissible on the basis of article 6.5 of the said Amparo Law, because RCTV had filed an administrative remedy seeking nullification before the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber on April 17, 2007.164 Cf. Amendment of the application for amparo filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 2, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3579 to 3589). 160 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0197, Inadmissibility decision of May 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3622 and 3593 to 3630). 161 In this regard, in his concurring opinion Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz indicated, inter alia, that: “the complaint filed regarding the administrative proceeding that was underway when the application for amparo was filed related to a violation of the right to an ordinary judge as regards the aspect of impartiality – because, as revealed, the body in charge of processing and deciding the proceeding had already given an opinion in this regard – rather than to the lack of response by the administrative authority called on to decide. The threat that a decision would be taken by a biased body, which was the purpose of the complaint, materialized in the response of the Minister whose subjective competence was questioned.” Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0197, Inadmissibility decision of May 17, 2007, Concurring opinion of Justice Pedro Rafael Rondón Haaz (evidence file, folios 3623 to 3630). 162 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0197, Inadmissibility decision of May 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3617 to 3621). 163 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0647, Decision No. 951 of May 24, 2007. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Mayo/951-240507-07-0647.htm 164 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, Case No. 07-0647, Decision No. 951 of May 24, 2007. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Mayo/951-240507-07-0647.htm 159