Acceso usuarios
Nuria a Orellana Cano
Constituye el objeto de este artículo el análisis de los diversos Autos dictados por la Sala de lo Social (4.ª) del Tribunal Supremo, resolviendo las cuestiones de competencia planteadas en el concurso conocido como Caso OMBUDS, que se tramita en el Juzgado de lo Mercantil número 13 de Madrid. El concurso ha propiciado un trascendente cambio competencial en la resolución de las divergencias suscitadas entre juzgados de lo mercantil y juzgados de lo social, ya que la Sala Especial de Conflictos del Tribunal Supremo del artículo 42 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, que tradicionalmente había conocido de los “conflictos de competencia” entre los órganos de ambos órdenes jurisdiccionales, ha resuelto que, cuando el juez del concurso resuelve cuestiones laborales atribuidas a su competencia, debe entenderse incluido en el orden jurisdiccional social, lo que implica que no estemos ante “conflictos de competencia”, sino ante “cuestiones de competencia”, que han de resolverse por el superior jerárquico común dentro del orden jurisdiccional social (Salas de lo Social del Tribunal Superior de Justicia o del Tribunal Supremo, según proceda). Ello supone que las cuestiones de competencia, cuando los juzgados de lo social y mercantil pertenecen al ámbito de distintos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia, sean resueltos por la Sala 4.ª del Tribunal Supremo, a cuyas resoluciones resolviendo dichas cuestiones de competencia en el Caso OMBUDS obedece este comentario, y, que se pueden dividir en dos grupos de casos
The purpose of this article is to analyse the various rulings handed down by the Social Division (4th) of the Supreme Court, resolving the questions of jurisdiction raised in the insolvency proceedings known as the OMBUDS case, which is being heard by Madrid Commercial Court number 13. The insolvency proceedings have led to a significant change in the resolution of differences of jurisdiction between commercial courts and labour courts, since the Special Chamber for Conflicts of Arti-cle 42 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which had traditionally heard “conflicts of jurisdiction” between the courts of both jurisdictional orders, has ruled that, when the insolvency judge resolves labour matters attributed to his jurisdiction, he must be understood to be included in the social jurisdictional order, which implies that we are not dealing with “conflicts of jurisdiction”, but rather with “questions of jurisdiction”, which must be resolved by the common hierarchical superior within the social jurisdictional order (Social Courts of the High Court of Justice or the Supreme Court, as the case may be). This means that questions of jurisdiction, when the labour and commercial courts belong to different High Courts of Justice, are resolved by the 4th Chamber of the Supreme Court, to whose decisions resolving these questions of jurisdiction in the OMBUDS case this commentary refers, and which can be divided into two groups of cases
