Précédent 10 / 57 Next

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 que han resultado como fruto de tales ilícitos, o bien, los que por sus características representan un peligro para la sociedad. 22. Así, en la sentencia se concluye que el precepto combatido no establece una confiscación, sino un decomiso, ya que se limita a establecer que los sujetos que presten servicios de telecomunicaciones o radiodifusión, sin contar con el permiso o autorización correspondiente, perderán en beneficio del Estado las instalaciones y los equipos empleados para tal efecto, comprendiendo únicamente los equipos que fueron utilizados para cometer la conducta castigada en la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión. 23. En la sentencia se desestima el argumento de la quejosa, según el cual debería ser aplicable la Ley Nacional de Extinción de Dominio, pues en el caso se trata de una infracción administrativa que se sanciona con un decomiso y no con una sanción penal. 24. Igualmente se niega que la norma legal sea contraria al artículo 23 constitucional, que prohíbe las dobles sanciones (non bis in idem), aun y cuando esta Primera Sala ha determinado que también resulta aplicable al derecho administrativo sancionador. 25. Para responder este punto, se destaca que la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión implementó un sistema de sanciones ejemplares cuyo objetivo fue disuadir a las personas de realizar alguna infracción a las reglas de observancia general, puesto que el crecimiento económico que representaba el sector daba pauta para que se actuara al margen de la ley. En el caso concreto, los artículos 298 y 299 buscan desalentar a los gobernados de proveer servicios al margen de la ley, estableciéndose como una medida sancionatoria ejemplar. 26. El artículo 305 establece la pérdida de bienes en beneficio de la Nación, con lo que se busca proteger los intereses del Estado y retirar del tráfico jurídico un determinado bien con el propósito de evitar la proliferación de entes irregulares. Así, no se actualiza una violación al artículo 23 constitucional, pues 10

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Case Law

Country

Mexico

Country Location

Latitude: 22.450275925480113

Longitude: -99.67675799131331

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Mexico

Decision Date: 5 oct. 2022

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Access to Internet
Digital Rights
Internet Service Providers

Judicial Body: Suprême (cour d'appel de dernière instance)

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

Constitución
Ley de Seguridad Nacional

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Judgment (Spanish)
Spanish
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Documents principaux

Notifications