According to the union, the court's decision is unequivocal in stating that the Administration violated the fundamental right to strike. The ruling was based on the imposition of disproportionate, arbitrary, and unjustified minimum services, which has been described as a significant setback for the hospital's management.

The court meticulously dismantled the management's actions, confirming the union's prior complaints about the inflation of minimum services, which far exceeded the usual legal reference for a public holiday, without any justification. This, according to the union, turned the strike into a mere simulation.

The judicial resolution also highlighted an unacceptable way of acting by the public Administration. It pointed out the absence of a formal administrative act to set the minimum services, the lack of a file justifying the decisions, and the use of informal documents without signature or validity.

Furthermore, the union emphasized as "most serious" the concealment of information during the key days of the strike, with communication being late and deficient, making it impossible to react appropriately. This situation has been interpreted as opacity, improvisation, and an absolute disregard for professionals' rights.

The Córdoba Medical Union believes this ruling marks a turning point, warning that they will not tolerate the use of minimum services as a tool to strip medical mobilizations of their content or to covertly impose almost normal healthcare activity during a strike. This judicial victory serves as a warning to the healthcare Administration that violating fundamental rights has consequences, and the union will continue to defend medical professionals against abuses and arbitrary decisions.