Previous 12 / 57 Next

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 32. Por tanto, inisiste que el precepto legal viola el derecho humano de acceso a la información, así como la libertad de pensamiento y expresión, además del derecho de propiedad. Ello, ya que con la aplicación de la norma se le quitan bienes que ha adquirido con mucho trabajo a lo largo del tiempo. 33. En su escrito, señala que también se violan los derechos a la seguridad jurídica y al debido proceso; asi como también el de acceso y uso de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación, “toda vez que el confiscar y/o embargar los bienes de los prestadores de servicios de telecomunicaciones constituye una medida muy agresiva que lejos de ayudar a la sociedad en general pone tropiezos en el acceso de las personas a los avances tecnológicos”. 34. En su escrito insiste en que el artículo combatido establece una sanción que es excesiva y que deja a la quejosa sin medios de subsistencia, vulnerando con ello su derecho al mínimo vital; además que la pone en un estado de indefensión y sin la posibilidad de pagar las multas. 35. Por otra parte, señala que la disposición legal combatida también viola el artículo 3, fracción V de la Constitución Federal, en la parte que establece que toda persona tiene derecho a gozar de los beneficios del desarrollo de la ciencia y la innovación tecnológica, pues el decomiso es un obstáculo al referido derecho de acceso, “ya que de manera indirecta imposibilita que el usuario haga uso del internet”. 36. A continuación, la recurrente se opone a la interpretación del artículo 7 constitucional que se hace en la sentencia, al estimar que el juzgado se constriñe a la literalidad de la norma constitucional, evitando desentrañar su ámbito de protección de derechos humanos de manera evolutiva. Así, afirma que el acceso a internet es un derecho constitucional, que resulta indispensable porque permite a los mexicanos acceder a la información del día, así como el acceso a las tecnologías de la información y de la comunicación. “No osbtante, el legislador no tomó en consideración estos principios rectores de la reforma [de 2013], porque redactó un artículo 12

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Case Law

Country

Mexico

Country Location

Latitude: 22.450275925480113

Longitude: -99.67675799131331

Country Location (linked Case Law): Mexico

Decision Date: Oct 5, 2022

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant/ Acquittal

Keywords

Access to Internet
Digital Rights
Internet Service Providers

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Court Name: Supreme Court of Mexico

Case Number: Amparo 136/2021

Case Summary: The Supreme Court of Mexico held that the seizure of devices that provide internet services without a license did not violate the right to freedom of expression and access to information. Article 305 of the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law establishes that persons who provide telecommunications or broadcasting services without a license or authorization shall forfeit in favor of the Nation the property, installations, and equipment used in the commission of such infractions. The petitioner, who had devices that were used to provide internet services without the required license, claimed that the seizure violated the right to freedom of expression and access to information because the internet allowed people to express their ideas and receive information. Additionally, the petitioner referred to Article 7 of the Mexican Constitution, which establishes that “in no case property used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas may be seized as an instrument of crime”. The Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting argued that there was no censorship nor restrictions to the dissemination of information, but rather a punitive measure against an illegal provision of services.

The Court held that the prohibition of the confiscation of equipment and properties used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas only applies as a “hard rule” when those goods are substantially linked to the aforementioned purposes (for example, printing instruments of a newspaper or the paper needed to publish magazines or books) or when the seizure is used to censor certain ideas or points of view. Further, the Court held that devices used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas should not be confused with any infrastructure or devices used for the provision of public services, and that, here, the seizure of goods did not seek to penalize a certain point of view, nor prevent a certain group of people from expressing their opinions. Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner did not engage in the provision of these irregular services to disseminate certain information, but rather they intended to make these services available to people to obtain an economic benefit. The Court noted that licenses for the provision of public telecommunications and broadcasting services are instruments that allow States to guarantee that public services, such as the internet, are provided under conditions of competition, quality, plurality, universal coverage, continuity, free access, and without arbitrary interferences for the benefit of all persons. In the Court’s opinion, the legal framework is clear and neutral, and the sanctions established to ensure its effectiveness pursue a legitimate aim and are reasonable and proportionate.

Case Significance: The decision of the Mexican Supreme Court allowed the seizure of devices that were being used to provide internet services without an appropriate license. It also clarified the standards and levels of scrutiny that must be used when analyzing these types of sanctions. Furthermore, the Court dsicussed the importance of the right to freedom of expression and the balance that must be struck when it comes to licenses and authorizations. However, it held that the seizure of goods used in the illegal provision of internet services could not be considered a disproportionate measure even in places where the internet is not easily accessible, as the petitioner argued in this case. Even if the contested measure only affects the instruments that are strictly related to the commission of the infraction, there are less restrictive alternatives to achieve the same goals, especially considering the importance of providing internet in low-access zones. A possible less restrictive alternative instead of the seizure could be, for example, a mere fine and an order or recommendation to request the appropriate license.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Law

Constitution of Mexico
National Security Law of Mexico

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment (Spanish)
Spanish
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Primary Documents

Notifications