Précédent 14 / 57 Next

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 42. Por último, la recurrente alega que el precepto legal combatido vulnera el principio de non bis in idem, consagrado en el artículo 23 de la Constitución Federal, pues por una misma conducta se le sanciona con una multa y con la diversa sanción de arrebatarle violentamente los instrumentos y herramientas utilizadas en la realización de la conducta sancionada. 43. Recurso de revisión del Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones. Por escrito presentado el dos de septiembre de dos mil veinte, la delegada del Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones, acudió a interponer recurso de revisión, en el que formuló un único concepto de agravio en contra de la concesión del amparo del acto de aplicación de las normas impugnadas, que es ajeno a la materia del presente recurso, por lo que no se sintetizarán los argumentos ahí desarrollados. 44. Trámite y resolución del Tribunal Colegiado. Los escritos de revisión fueron turnados al Primer Tribunal Colegiado de Circuito en Materia Administrativa Especializado en Competencia Económica, Radiodifusión y Telecomunicaciones, con residencia en la Ciudad de México y jurisdicción en toda la República, quien los registró con el número de expediente **********. 45. En sesión de once de marzo de dos mil veintiuno, el Colegiado del conocimiento emitió sentencia, en la cual determinó la firmeza del sobreseimiento decretado, la negativa de amparo respecto del numeral 299 de la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión, y declinó su competencia al estimar que debía reservarse la competencia exclusiva de esta Suprema Corte para conocer sobre la validez del artículo 305 de la Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión. 46. Trámite del recurso de revisión ante esta Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Mediante acuerdo de dieciséis de abril de dos mil veintiuno, el Presidente de esta Suprema Corte ordenó registrar el asunto con el número 136/2021, asumir competencia originaria para conocer del recurso de revisión, turnar el asunto al Ministro Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, así como enviar los 14

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