39 C.2 Administrative remedy seeking nullification 107. On April 17, 2007, a group of RCTV executives, journalists and other employees filed a remedy under administrative law seeking nullification of the administrative decision delivered in Resolution No. 002 and Communication No. 0424.165 The plaintiffs alleged that the decisions being challenged were unconstitutional, characterized by the presumed violation of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, to due process, to defense and to be heard by an impartial authority, to the guarantee of the non-retroactivity of the law, to equality, to economic freedom and to private property. They also considered that the administrative decisions were unlawful owing to: (i) violation of the principle of the hierarchy of laws and the singular nonderogability of regulations; (ii) violation of general principles of law; (iii) subjective lack of competence; (iv) unlawful purpose; (v) false premise; (vi) misuse of power; (vii) complete and absolute absence of procedure; (viii) violation of the legal obligation established in article 210 of the LOTEL to transform RCTV’s licenses. In their brief, the plaintiffs also requested an injunction or, failing that, an unspecified protective measure. In particular, they asked the competent court to order the MPPTI: (i) to refrain from taking any decision that might prevent RCTV from transmitting its programming until such time as a final decision was taken on the merits, and (ii) to take the necessary measures to ensure that the station continued operating on the same frequencies nationwide until a final decision on the complaint had been taken. 108. On May 22, 2007, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the SCJ admitted the appeal for nullification, but declared the application for an injunction inadmissible and did not address the request for an unspecified protective measure. The decision to dismiss the application for an injunction considered that the right to freedom of thought and expression “is not absolute because it must be exercised within the boundaries of certain values and constitutional principles.” It indicated that, in effect, “under Article 113 of the Constitution, in the case of the exploitation of natural resources which are the property of the State – as in the case of the radioelectric spectrum - […] the State may grant concessions for a certain length of time, always ensuring the existence of service providers or counterparts that are in the public interest.” In this regard, the Chamber indicated that, “in principle, “the plaintiffs may exercise their right to freedom of thought and expression using the radioelectric frequency assigned to RCTV only for as long as the concession is in effect […], and this in no way implies a supposed violation of that right, because the plaintiffs are free to impart their ideas, opinions and information through the many other media outlets.” 109. The Chamber also observed that: (i) to examine the alleged violations of the rights to due process, to defense, to the non-retroactivity of the law, to property and to economic freedom, the Chamber would have to conduct a detailed examination of the administrative procedures whose decisions were being challenged, and this would correspond to the merits stage of the appeal for nullification; (ii) the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the presumed violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence because the decisions they were challenging did not impose a penalty on RCTV, and (iii) regarding the alleged violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination, RCTV had failed to demonstrate that its circumstances were equal to those of the other operators.166 110. On May 24, 2007, the plaintiffs submitted a brief to the Political-Administrative Chamber reiterating the urgency of the case and requesting a decision on their request for an Cf. Administrative remedy seeking nullification, filed with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on April 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 2794 to 2892). 166 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Political-Administrative Chamber, Case No. 07-0411, Decision of May 22, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3632 to 3688). 165