ADMINISTRATIVE. THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SCJN RULED THAT ARTICLE 73 OF THE ANTITRUST LAW WHICH EMPOWERS THE FEDERAL ECONOMIC COMPETITION COMMISSION ("COFECE") TO REQUEST REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY
The First Chamber of the SCJN, resolved the constitutional appeal 565/2023 and determined that Article 73 of the Antitrust Law does not violate the principle of legal certainty by not establishing a time limit within the normative hypothesis for the competent authority to request information and documents from individuals.
This decision is based on the considerations that the legislator, when issuing the Antitrust Law -Federal Economic Competition Law-, established the figure of prescription not only in relation to the authority's power to impose sanctions but also, expressly, in relation to the authority's power to initiate investigations.
Additionally, it must be understood that the authority's power in economic competition matters to request information and documentation is necessarily linked to the investigations that the authority can conduct. Therefore, COFECE can request the information and documentation it deems necessary to carry out its investigations, as long as its power to investigate potential illegal conduct is not prescribed and an investigation, whose duration period has not been exceeded, is open.
Therefore, the legal framework provides sufficient clarity in articles 71, 73, and 137 to conclude that they establish a limit on the duration of investigations, including the requirements that form part of them, and a statute of limitations for COFECE's authority to initiate them. This provides adequate certainty to individuals regarding the precautions they must observe in the care and safeguarding of documents and evidence related to certain behaviors that may potentially be subject to reproach.
CRIMINAL. THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SCJN DETERMINED THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEES THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN DIGNITY, AUTONOM Y, AND PERSONAL FREEDOM
The First Chamber of the SCJN, resolved constitutional appeal 2880/2020 and determined that the right to privacy guarantees the protection of human dignity, autonomy, and personal freedom.
This matter arose from an amparo claim challenging the constitutionality of Article 303 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes that the authorization to access retained phone data -call records- can be granted by the corresponding judicial authority.
In this sense, the decision is based on the premise that the right to privacy ensures that individuals have a space where they can pursue their life projects without fear of interference from the State or third parties. Therefore, access to information, when it infringes on privacy protections, represents the exercise of unjustified power over individuals, as its use can alter habits and preferences, force individuals to act in certain ways, and suppress democratically valuable behaviors.
Additionally, the SCJN emphasizes that invasions of privacy by the Government can result in a submissive citizenry, depriving individuals of the ability to act according to their own will by reducing their capacity to participate in the political and social life of the country. Consequently, the prerogatives contained in Article 16 of the Constitution, enhanced privacy protections, must be understood broadly and applied to analogous situations, such as access to retained telecommunications data. To ensure such constitutional protections preserve a realm of action free from third-party interference, they must be given the widest possible scope.
CRIMINAL. THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SCJN DETERMINED THAT THE JUDICIAL BODY MUST ANALYZE THE MULTIPLE VULNERABILITY FACTORS OF THE VICTIM WHEN IT IS ALLEGED THAT A WOMAN'S DEATH WAS VIOLENT
The First Chamber of the SCJN, resolved the constitutional appeal 1419/2023 and determined that intersectionality is part of the judicial obligations in cases where it is alleged that a woman' s death was violent. This means that the elements of vulnerability must be considered, without the seintersections being used as arguments to disregard human rights and genders tandards.
This decision is based on the fact that the intersectional perspective represents the convergence of multiple vulnerability factors and risk s of discrimination. It illustrates the different manifestations and dimensions in which these elements affect the life experiences of certain groups, including all obstacles to providing a comprehensivere sponse to them, and must be considered in cases where one of the parties has an identity element that increases their vulnerability.
In this sense, when intersectionality becomes a method of analysis, it offers a more critical approach to the experiences of historically marginalized groups and helps to eliminate obs tacles to accessing justice on an equitable basis. Finally, the way it complements the gender perspective in judicial decisions begins with the recognition of these factors to ensure compr ehensive access to justice.
CIVIL. A CIRCUIT COURT ( "CC" ) RULED THAT INJUNCTION IN AMPARO CLAIM WITH RESTITUTORY EFFECTS IS APPLICABLE AGAINST OMISSIVE ACTS
The Sixth Circuit Court in Civil Matters of the Third Circuit, resolved the appeal 532/202 and determined than injunction in amparo claim with retributory effects is applicable against omissiveacts.
In this regard, this matter derived from an amparo claim filed against a declaration of incompetence by inhibitory action in a testamentary succession proceeding, in which it was ordered to require the authority deemed incompetent to handle the corresponding procedure.
In this sense , the decision of the CC was based on the jurisprudence thesis 2a./J. 22/2023 (11a.) of the Second Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice ("SCJN"), which establishes that an injunction is applicable as long as its provisional retributory effects can be reversed in the event of an unfavorable final ruling in the amparo claim proceeding. In this sense , regarding the omission of response or processing of the incompetence raised by inhibitory action, the injunction is applicable to cease such abstention, since any eventual pronouncement or actions derived the refrom, in the event of an adverse final resolution in the main proceeding, would be rendered void by the respective order and things would be restored to the state they were in before the measure was executed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.