Anterior 21 / 57 Próximo

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 CONTRAVIENE EL ARTÍCULO 22, PÁRRAFO PRIMERO, DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN.” 69. En la revisión la recurrente se opone a ambas conclusiones argumentando que la sentencia recurrida realiza una interpretación restrictiva de los preceptos constitucionales, desvinculándolos de los derechos humanos y, por tanto, de su entendimiento evolutivo. En otras palabras, por lo que respecta al artículo 22 constitucional, la recurrente no se opone a la distinción jurisprudencial entre confiscación ni decomiso, ni tampoco niega que el criterio citado en la sentencia haya reconocido la validez de un precepto legal similar al ahora impugnado. Más bien, su reclamo se sintetiza en que la sanción de privación de los bienes utilizados en la prestación de los servicios de telecomunicaciones sin autorización produce una afectación injustificada en los derechos sustantivos previstos en el artículo 7 constitucional, en relación con los fines de la reforma constitucional de dos mil trece. En otra palabras, no es que se viole el artículo 22 constitucional aisladamente, sino siempre en relación con los derechos a la libertad de expresión y acceso a la información. 70. Así, la recurrente alega que no se estudió la pregunta de si esa privación de bienes actualiza una restricción indirecta a los derechos humanos a la libertad de expresión y acceso a la información. 71. Esto se demuestra, en opinión de la recurrente, porque el juez de Distrito no consideró los fines de la reforma constitucional de junio dos mil trece en materia de telecomunicaciones, al limitarse a aplicar un criterio aislado de la Segunda Sala emitido años previo a esa reforma. 72. Pues bien esta Sala estima que los agravios de la recurrente se dirigen a combatir la estructura argumentativa de la sentencia recurrida, así como su conclusión. 73. Los argumentos de la recurrente son infundados en sus conclusiones, aunque acierta en su crítica dirigida contra el desarrollo argumentativo de la sentencia recurrida. Aunque esta Sala procederá a corregir las premisas de la sentencia 21

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Case Law

Country

Mexico

Country Location

Latitud: 22.450275925480113

Longitud: -99.67675799131331

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): Mexico

Decision Date: 5 oct 2022

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Access to Internet
Digital Rights
Internet Service Providers

Judicial Body: Corte Suprema [corte de última instancia/casación]

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

Related Law

Constitución
Ley de Seguridad Nacional

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 jul 2024

Documentos primarios

Judgment (Spanish)
Spanish
Descargar Ver

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Documentos primarios

Notificaciones