"Article 1.-Insert the following article 101 in the organic code of courts:" article 101.-when there are imbalances between the allocations of the judges and the workload between courts of the same jurisdiction, the Supreme Court, at the request of the respective Court of appeals, following a report from the administrative Corporation of the judiciary, showing objective for your source data and the budget of the judiciary availability permitting " , may be temporarily and on a rotating basis to one or more judges of warranty of courts, courts of Oral proceedings in criminal, family courts, labour courts, courts of collection work and social security and courts with competence common referred to article 27 bis, to his duties must be carried out preferably in another court of the same specialty.
That power may be exercised only between courts of jurisdictional territories belonging to a same appeals court, for a maximum period of six months by each judge, without immediate renewal and between courts, in whole or in part, to share the same jurisdictional territory or which are jurisdictional territories contiguous.
You can however, allocated to a judge at a court in a non-contiguous jurisdictional territory, with its agreement express and prior report of administrative the Corporation to court, which must declare founded the reasons that make necessary or convenient for the judicial service proceed as shown. Also a destination, may be renewed immediately when it has to do so with the agreement of the respective judge.
The Supreme Court shall designate the judge intended giving preference to those who express their interest in being temporarily allocated.
This ability may not be exercised with respect to the judge President of the Court or affect simultaneously to a higher percentage to 50% of the members of each tribunal judges.
The exercise of this right shall not alter the system of remuneration, qualifications or the statutory scheme intended for judges, nor can import deterioration in his capacity as an official, personal and family. However, in the event that the judge is destined to a court that because of its location, apply a higher remuneration, it shall be applicable, duration of your destination, the scale of remuneration corresponding to that Court. The judge deemed that your destination means a detriment in those conditions, founded request revocation of the measure to the Supreme Court within five days of its notification.
The obligation referred to in article 311 shall be accomplished by the judge temporarily assigned, for all legal purposes, by the fact to be verified with respect to the Court of origin.
In any case, the option provided for in this article may be employed as a mechanism of sanction or prejudice against the intended for judges, nor be used repeatedly on a same judge.
Without prejudice as provided in the second paragraph, the Supreme Court may exercise the Faculty of destination between courts located within the metropolitan area, even when they depend on various courts of appeals. "."