© Laura Caballero Trenado

Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (España)

Esta dirección de correo electrónico está siendo protegida contra los robots de spam. Necesita tener JavaScript habilitado para poder verlo.

Summary

Is honour predicable to Legal Persons under Public Law? What defensive actions can be raised in the face of an eventual breach of this right? What possibilities would an application for amparo have to thrive? This article analyzes the scope of the right to honour contained in article 18.1 CE, in order to determine if it is possible to articulate the defense of its good name around a broad meaning or, on the contrary, around a restrictive sense.

In its broad meaning, the defense would be anchored in the right to honuor, with the corollary of advantages, both substantive and procedural. But if it is only possible to articulate the defense in its most restrictive aspect -the right to a good name- the aforementioned prerogatives are missed.

Thus, the core issue lies around the ownership of the fundamental right. And, given that honour is an undefined legal concept, it is necessary to resort to its jurisprudential configuration, a task that is tackled by the High Court and, above all, in the Constitutional Court. However, although both tribunals have not been in favour of granting the entitlement of the right to Legal Persons under Public Law, there is no yet a consolidated doctrine.

Therefore, the conclusions we reach will allow us to establish the baselines, in order to determine if it is possible to articulate the defense of Legal Persons under Public Law around an application for amparo or if, definitely, the aforementioned option is an entelechy.